Slashdot Mirror


Extortion Virus Code Cracked

Billosaur writes "BBC News is reporting that the password to the dreaded Archiveus virus has been discovered and is now available to anyone who needs it. Archiveus is a 'ransomware' virus, which combines files from the My Documents folder on Windows machines and exchanges them for a single, password-protected file, which it will not unlock unless a password is given. The user would normally be required to pay the extortionist money in order to receive the password, but apparently the virus writer made one small, critical error in coding: placing the password in the code. BTW, the 30-digit password locking the files is mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw."

371 comments

  1. What relief! by AltGrendel · · Score: 4, Funny
    BTW, the 30-digit password locking the files is mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw."

    I was just looking for that. Thanks!

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:What relief! by chargrilled · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if that's funny or sad!

    2. Re:What relief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah me too. I was just trying aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh8 and then the story appeared.

    3. Re:What relief! by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
      > > BTW, the 30-digit password locking the files is mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw."
      >
      > I was just looking for that. Thanks!

      What?! That's exactly the kind of combination a Slashdotter would use on his luggage!

    4. Re:What relief! by wasimmer · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage!

    5. Re:What relief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      1) Write Ransom Virus
      2) Somebody cracks the key
      3) !Profit :(

    6. Re:What relief! by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Funny
      Geez, what a couple of noobs you guys are!

      Note to self: change luggage comnbination.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    7. Re:What relief! by Kortec · · Score: 2, Funny

      Scale of 1-10 . . how incriminating is it if that sequence just happens to actually be my luggage lock combination?

      --
      "My heart is in the work." - Andrew Carnegie
    8. Re:What relief! by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 3, Funny
      I was just trying aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh8

      I take it you were dictating?

    9. Re:What relief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh. That's exactly the same password I use on my luggage!

    10. Re:What relief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Congratulations, you officially "get the joke"!

    11. Re:What relief! by caseydk · · Score: 4, Funny

      I just trademarked the Web mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw.0 conference.

    12. Re:What relief! by dakara · · Score: 2, Funny

      What!? Who leaked my root password?!

    13. Re:What relief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never mind, it looks like they already reversed your nose job...

    14. Re:What relief! by NetRAVEN5000 · · Score: 0
      Dammit!

      Well now that you all know my XP Product Activation Code. . .

    15. Re:What relief! by ultranova · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was just looking for that. Thanks!

      Unfortunately, you cannot use it. To do so would be to circumvent an effective access control method. That, in turn, would put you in violation of the DMCA.

      I'm not joking. I'm serious. You are breaking the law if you use this code without having gotten it from the virus writer. Draw your own conclusion about the DMCA from that.

      I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    16. Re:What relief! by IDontAgreeWithYou · · Score: 2, Funny

      You have locks on your luggage?!! TERRORIST!!!!

      --
      Finding other idiots on /. that agree with your opinion doesn't make it any less stupid.
    17. Re:What relief! by flogic42 · · Score: 1

      If I was a ninja I'd throw a dagger that would write me a better virus.

      --
      Check out my women's designer clothing store.
    18. Re:What relief! by Jarth · · Score: 1

      Ah, so please please supply us with a link to the exact paragraph or some other evidence. Does not everyone want to be rich these sorry days ?

      --
      free dom(inion) - free energy - free your mind - whee!
    19. Re:What relief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But is it up to the Federal government to take initial action, or is it up to the 'software creator' to file a suit against those that violate the DCMA?

      Be interesting to see the author place a claim on everyone using this password 'illegitimately' in court. Keep a stopwatch around to see how fast he/she gets picked up by the FBI.

    20. Re:What relief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm not a lawyer."

      Need to put that at the top to save us all some time.

      "You are breaking the law," says the non-lawyer, helping me to draw my own conclusions.

  2. ummm by geoffspear · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Odd how that "30 digit password" has 38 characters, 13 of which are digits.

    --
    Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    1. Re:ummm by honestmonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe they meant 30 as in "any number that is greater than 29 and less than 40". You know, thirty. Thirty-ish. Mostly thirty. About thirty. Close to forty, but not quite. Good enough for government work. In Soviet Russia, YOU are 30. 30) Profit! 38 is the new 30.

      Actually I didn't see any fingers or toes in the password at all.

      --
      Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
    2. Re:ummm by Duodecimal · · Score: 1

      It's a shame that this was almost a base-13 joke. And they said no one makes base-13 jokes.

    3. Re:ummm by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      You mean tredecimal Duodecimal?

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    4. Re:ummm by griffjon · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that when you're 38, you'll claim to be "30"

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    5. Re:ummm by Pete+Brubaker · · Score: 1

      Odd how you cant count either. It has 39 characters.

      --
      What's a sig? Pete Brubaker
    6. Re:ummm by sharkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps the period is not part of the password, but rather denotes the end of the sentence.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    7. Re:ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the null byte.

    8. Re:ummm by darkmeridian · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, no. You have to pay the virus researchers to find out which eight characters to ignore. Thank god for the virus researchers, otherwise the virus ransomers would really have us, huh?

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    9. Re:ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd how you apparently haven't mastered the use of the apostrophe. And, you don't seem to know how to set up Apache, either.

    10. Re:ummm by Negadecimal · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean tredecimal Duodecimal?

      You called?

    11. Re:ummm by mage_naes · · Score: 1

      I like the fact that if you screw your eyes up a little, the start of the password reads "Microsoft".

    12. Re:ummm by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1
      We're just joking around here, and you come up with your creepy negative-base number system!

      Thanks actually, I learned something.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    13. Re:ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 38, but only 12 digits, so you're both wrong. Amazing, isn't it?

    14. Re:ummm by nybble_me · · Score: 2, Funny

      I for one welcome our new 30 overlords!
      NetCraft confirms, 30 is dead!
      Imagine a beowolf cluster of 30s!
      Yum, 30 with hot grits
      IANAL 30!

      --

      reenigne
    15. Re:ummm by fbjon · · Score: 1

      You now hold the record for most +1 Funny in the least amount of consciousness stream.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    16. Re:ummm by Ventriloquate · · Score: 1

      LURHQ

      "You can not guess the password for your archived files - password length is more than 30 symbols that makes all password recovery programs fail to bruteforce it (guess password by trying all possible combinations)."

    17. Re:ummm by geoffspear · · Score: 1
      Yes, the password is more than 30 characters. 8 more than 30, in fact.

      What's your point? The author of the article still has a problem with either counting or with writing clearly.

      If someone said "Edinburgh is more than 5 miles from London, so you're very unlikely to get there by walking for a couple of hours in a rondom direction" and the BBC posted a story saying "The 5 mile trip from London to Edinburgh, in case you were wondering, involves taking the M1 and M6", would you think it was unreasonable to find fault with their writing?

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  3. Wait... by ImaLamer · · Score: 5, Funny

    We are all now victims of a DMCA lawsuit!

    1. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      darn! you beat me to it!

    2. Re:Wait... by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      Dude, don't joke! Maybe that was the Virus writer's intention all along!

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
  4. My Lord what are we coming to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    These days even the virus authors don't know anything about writing secure software :(

    1. Re:My Lord what are we coming to by callistra.moonshadow · · Score: 1

      Didn't they catch the author of one of the worm virii via their name embedded within the code? Real slick.

      --
      --Cally
    2. Re:My Lord what are we coming to by ScouseMouse · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Mr mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw is getting his door broken down by upset police officers as we speak.

    3. Re:My Lord what are we coming to by callistra.moonshadow · · Score: 1

      Heh. Actually I'd have to research it but one of the worms had the real author name in the vb script. Putting the password inside the code is amusing and poor judgement. They assumed the victim(s) wouldn't seek technical help. Bad assumption.

      --
      --Cally
    4. Re:My Lord what are we coming to by Ougarou · · Score: 2, Interesting
      They/He/She should have used a public key to encrypt it, and keep the other one private. He should also have used a special random code which is rehashed by the author to create a sort of license key. They should make a .NET library to help these guys with propper DRM.

      Well, that's how I would have done it (or tried to do it). For that matter: why isn't GPG as mainstream as milk?

    5. Re:My Lord what are we coming to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Gee, why don't you STFU and stop giving these assholes ideas? ~:P

    6. Re:My Lord what are we coming to by nutsy · · Score: 1

      Think! Malware authors prey upon the stupid and the careless. Why else would there be so many phishing e-mails to the effect of "Your account with [some bank that doesn't even have a presence in your area] has been compromised; to recover it, enter all your personal details on this page here"?

      If you don't believe there are users too stupid to live, much less to use a computer intelligently and competently, try following Raymond Chen's weblog for a while. It's a wonder the man doesn't go on a shooting spree.

    7. Re:My Lord what are we coming to by callistra.moonshadow · · Score: 1

      Sure, I agree that most people are not computer literate. However, the reason most of these types get caught is underestimating their victims. Another point to keep in mind is that the reason these folks sign their vehicles of mass chaos is due to pride. When met with the more adept user or someone willing to seek help from the authorities/technical assistance this hubris gets the perpetrator caught.

      --
      --Cally
    8. Re:My Lord what are we coming to by Phleg · · Score: 1

      Oh, FUCK this raises an interesting concern. Imagine the kind of situation this virus would have caused in a machine with an embedded TPM chip. It would have been bad enough if the virus author was smart enough to use public/private key cryptography, but locking files and storing the key using the unreadable hardware storage provided by a TPM chip would be utterly devastating.

      --
      No comment.
  5. Wow! by daivzhavue · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's the combination to my luggage!

    --
    "A REAL computer has ONE speed and the only powersaving it permits is when you pull the power leads out of the back!"
    1. Re:Wow! by monkaduck · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, you too?

      --
      Napalm is nature's toothpaste
    2. Re:Wow! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Only a twit leaves the luggage combination in the front pocket. :P

    3. Re:Wow! by minusthink · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know you really should change the default on those types of things.

      --
      "when life gets complicated, I like to take a nap in a tree and wait for dinner" - Hobbes.
    4. Re:Wow! by nacturation · · Score: 2, Funny

      Luggage? Heck, that's what's flashing on my VCR right now!

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    5. Re:Wow! by heson · · Score: 1

      Its just looks like that to you becuase its you luggage combo. It looks like hunter2 to me.

  6. Just wait... by hanssprudel · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Next time it will be a virus writer who knows about public key cryptography, and then you'll just have to pony up the dough... (or you could stop getting your computer infected with malware in the first place.)

    1. Re:Just wait... by Surt · · Score: 0

      Public key cryptography does not work against a man in the middle attack. When the files are being encrypted by software running on your computer, such a virus is inevitably vulnerable. To overcome this flaw, the virus writer would have to send the files to a pre-known IP address for off-site encryption (which among other problems would probably be a pretty noticeable activity). Doing so would presumably also expose the author to risk that the computer in question (and presumably he himself) could be siezed.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:Just wait... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >(or you could stop getting your computer infected with malware in the first place.)

      Backing up your data would also work.

      Notice how much this virus is like a proprietary file format? You can't get at your own data without paying for a license to the proprietary reader.

    3. Re:Just wait... by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Interesting
      When the files are being encrypted by software running on your computer, such a virus is inevitably vulnerable.
      Unless it uses the Trusted Platform Module on new computers to do the encryption for it!
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Just wait... by cperciva · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When the files are being encrypted by software running on your computer, such a virus is inevitably vulnerable. To overcome this flaw, the virus writer would have to send the files to a pre-known IP address for off-site encryption...

      No.

    5. Re:Just wait... by packetmon · · Score: 1

      I would think "exposure" is not a factor considering the author is demanding a ransom which can just as easily be tracked. As to your comment on PKC, what's to stop the next version from self installing GNUPG locally and creating a key in similar fashion.

    6. Re:Just wait... by swillden · · Score: 5, Informative

      Public key cryptography does not work against a man in the middle attack.

      True, in general, though precautions can be taken. I fail to see how a MITM attack is even relevant here, though.

      When the files are being encrypted by software running on your computer, such a virus is inevitably vulnerable.

      Why? Virus contains public key, generates random session key (ideally in memory-locked pages that cannot be swapped out), encrypts all your data with session key, encrypts session key with public key, writes encrypted session key to a file, wipes session key from memory, then shuts down.

      Assuming you don't notice the virus before all of this happens, you're toast unless you can get a copy of the private key.

      To overcome this flaw, the virus writer would have to send the files to a pre-known IP address for off-site encryption (which among other problems would probably be a pretty noticeable activity). Doing so would presumably also expose the author to risk that the computer in question (and presumably he himself) could be siezed.

      Did you mean decryption? If so, yes, the writer would have to have you ship your session key file to him so he could decrypt it and give you your unique decryption key. I don't think that activity is nearly as risky to the writer as trying to figure out how to collect the money, though. Following money trails is something the world's law enforcement agencies are very good at.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:Just wait... by XMyth · · Score: 1

      Why exactly couldn't the virus writer's public key be used to encrypt the files? Then he/she provides payers with his private key to decrypt them. How is that "inevitably vulnerable" ?

      Or, a more sensible method would be to

      Infect PC
      Generate a random password, P
      Encrypt files with P
      Encrypt P with public key, I, resulting in V the ciphertext version of the randomly generated password
      Victim must provide V to the virus writer who decrypts V with his private key, which results in P

    8. Re:Just wait... by BeBoxer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Following money trails is something the world's law enforcement agencies are very good at.

      Yeah, I used to think that. But the fact that I get hundreds of emails every day from people hawking either pirated software and counterfeit/illegal pills has convinced me otherwise.

    9. Re:Just wait... by TikiTDO · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You are absolutely wrong. PKI was designed with the purpose of preventing man-in-the-middle attacks. The virus writer would include the public key in the virus with an associated encryption algorithm. The problem arised with decryption. In order to decrypt a file you would need an associated private key. Now if this key is available inside the virus it would be just as easy to find as the password within the article.

      In fact the whole idea of cryptography revolves around the encryption algorithm telling you nothing about a method to decrypt the data it encrypts (At least without a certain key). These are called trapdoor one-way functions.

      The most realistic way I can think of writing such a virus would be to provide and encryption algo in the virus and then provide a decryption program when the intended victim has paid you the money. Now aren't you glad I'm not writing viruses?

    10. Re:Just wait... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I used to think that. But the fact that I get hundreds of emails every day from people hawking either pirated software and counterfeit/illegal pills has convinced me otherwise.

      The fact the LE is good at following money doesn't mean they're actually interested in doing it in the cases you care about.

      I once reported a guy who was selling hundreds of pirated movies on ebay to the FBI. They basically told me that they didn't care. Not in so many words, but it was clear they weren't going to do anything.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:Just wait... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Following money trails is something the world's law enforcement agencies are very good at.

      Have them send the money via Western Union under the name Boris Yeltson or some such. Western Union does not ask for ID and does not verify the identity of the person picking up the money (at least they didn't a year ago when I last paid attention to such scams). All you need is the confirmation code. They assume that if you show up at the right branch with the right string of numbers, you must be authorized. And once it is picked up, it is gone forever.

    12. Re:Just wait... by sholden · · Score: 1

      You should have reported them to the MPAA - since they do care about such things. Plus their actions aren't restricted by that pesky bill of rights...

    13. Re:Just wait... by pr0f3550rcha05 · · Score: 1

      Couldn't the writer use something like a (much more solid) version of what Winzip uses? You send them the name under which you plan to register, and they encode that. If he distributes the virus with the ability to do a cryptographic hash on the size in kb of your MyDocs folder, and just makes you send that number along with your payment. He has the same hash system and can generate the appropriate key. Everyone has a different key, at least, but of course Winzip's system is highly crackable anyways...

    14. Re:Just wait... by Cylix · · Score: 1

      which is funny...

      I once reported a video store for doing the same thing. I didn't mind so much they were pirated, but the fact is they didn't even make an attempt to remove the macrovision.

      I called the FBI to report this heinous crime (mind you I was like 12 or 13) and got bounced around a few times. They were surprisingly friendly to a kid who claimed a rental store was dishing out pirated flicks.

      Anyhow, I talked to someone and I told them about it. I really wanted this to be anonymous, but I said I would give them my name and address if it was really necessary. The lady said it was ok and she didn't need my info as they had a couple reports already. About a week later the store was shut down and everyone blamed me! It was great and I didn't give two shits if people really thought it was my fault.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    15. Re:Just wait... by kisrael · · Score: 1

      So the money only goes to a particular branch? That could easily be staked out?

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    16. Re:Just wait... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
      Public key cryptography does not work against a man in the middle attack.


      Insofar as this is true, its irrelevant. There is no key exchange here; you simply keep the private key, and put the public key in the code, and use it to encrypt the software.

      When the files are being encrypted by software running on your computer, such a virus is inevitably vulnerable.


      How, precisely, is a virus that does what is described above vulnerable?

      To overcome this flaw, the virus writer would have to send the files to a pre-known IP address for off-site encryption (which among other problems would probably be a pretty noticeable activity). Doing so would presumably also expose the author to risk that the computer in question (and presumably he himself) could be siezed.


      Well, even if there was a need to do off-site encryption (as noted above, they aren't), it would make more sense to use some other exploit to take control of remote systems, and have those remote systems act as the encryption servers, rather than use a PC easily traceable to the virus creator as the encryption server.

    17. Re:Just wait... by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      sounds like someone just took Cs101 this summer. Go back and read your book, when you have public key cryptography, the virus can encrypt the files with a public key , basically encrtypt it like an email intended for the virus writer. Like the email, it cant be decrypted without the private key.

      the MITM attack is only good when you are just establishing a ring of trust. I have no idea how this is even relavant.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    18. Re:Just wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely right. In fact, check out the book Cryptovirology for details on exactly how to do this right :) Not that anybody skilled enough to actually do it correctly would want to risk spending the rest of their life in jail...

    19. Re:Just wait... by Ken_g6 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or worse, a virus writer could just use a randomized one-time pad which makes the files unrecoverable, claim he has the password, and just make off with the dough!

      (Mod me down to hide my post if you think I'm giving virus writers too many ideas.)

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    20. Re:Just wait... by BeBoxer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The fact the LE is good at following money doesn't mean they're actually interested in doing it in the cases you care about.

      As a loyal slashdot member, I had not bothered to read the article before posting. I actually did go back and read it, and you'll never guess how the ransom is paid. The victims are asked to go buy drugs at one of three online "pharmacies". Curious, eh?

    21. Re:Just wait... by swillden · · Score: 3, Funny

      As a loyal slashdot member, I had not bothered to read the article before posting.

      That goes without saying, good sir.

      I actually did go back and read it

      You what??? As an even more loyal slashdot member, I *still* have not read the article :-)

      you'll never guess how the ransom is paid. The victims are asked to go buy drugs at one of three online "pharmacies". Curious, eh?

      Very. So this virus is... advertising? Wow.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    22. Re:Just wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (or you could stop getting your computer infected with malware in the first place.)

      Hell, I unwittingly made myself immune to this thing by simply not using the "My Documents" folder for anything. I never use "My nnnnnnn" folders for anything.

      It reminds me of being essentially virus-proof despite having no virus checker, as late as the year 2001 -- simply by not using Outlook and not opening attachments.

    23. Re:Just wait... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Notice how much this virus is like a proprietary file format? You can't get at your own data without paying for a license to the proprietary reader.

      Yeah but at least the virus author doesn't blow smoke up your ass by calling their file format a "feature."

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    24. Re:Just wait... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      The TPM virus is yet to hit us.

      It'll be really funny though when the first virus that actually does that gets released... want your files back? You gotta crack TPM...

    25. Re:Just wait... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Yeah but it goes to a particular branch in some Third World country where for $100 you can have the police give you an escort to go down and pick up the money. Or maybe they'll just wait for you to pick it up, then kill you and take it. But either way, enforcement of international treaty obligations or giving a shit about whether the money got extorted from some American probably isn't going to be forefront on their minds.

      Western Union has branches in some seriously shady locations. I just played around with their online branch locator, and they have branches in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, (not Somalia though, I guess they have to draw the line somewhere -- like having a currency and/or government), Syria, Iraq, (not Iran), the Palestinian Authority, as well as lots of offices in some of the more corruptible but not-quite-third-world locales like Mexico and Russia.

      So basically, even if you traced the money to the branch where it was getting picked up, and had a photo and thumbprint of the person who received the cash, good luck getting anything done about it.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    26. Re:Just wait... by Soporific · · Score: 1

      More or less I believe you can do this at a particular city with a collection of offices instead sending it to a specific branch.

      ~S

    27. Re:Just wait... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      In that case the one time pad would have to be in the virus's code (or at least accessible to it) no?

      With PKE the virus could know the public key, encrypt everything using it, but to decrypt it you have to pay the author for the private key. It would probably only work on one person though, provided he shared.

    28. Re:Just wait... by rhets · · Score: 1

      There is a name for viruses that use public key cryptography in malicious ways (such as extortion), there is even a book published about it. The authors have a webpage: http://www.cryptovirology.com/.

    29. Re:Just wait... by maxume · · Score: 1

      People are no less responsible for decisions that are uninformed. Getting locked into proprietary formats is an uniformed decision, not extortion; extortion is being coerced to do something you otherwise would not. I guess if you are nuts you could equate advertising with coercion, but then you would be nuts.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    30. Re:Just wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you

      know

      nothing

      hint: random session key

    31. Re:Just wait... by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      A procedure otherwise known as deleting files and creating a file of the same size with random data.

    32. Re:Just wait... by Ninjaesque+One · · Score: 0

      Hell; as late as the year 2006. I still don't have a virus checker.

      --
      Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
    33. Re:Just wait... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Now aren't you glad I'm not writing viruses?

      How do we know you're not?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    34. Re:Just wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, that's been the last 25 or 30 years of malware and the cry of every hacker / Graham Clueless
      "If I'd been malicious it could have been worse"

      Let's face it, the richest guy on the planet with all his resources can't make it worse. They still say the same thing
      "Windows 95 crashing? It could have been a lot worse"

      So I think we're safe from the doom and gloom simply because of a lack of resources.

      If you do backups, you're safer still. If you don't, then every disk manufacturer gives specs
      that basically say "One day, your data is screwed buddy and you won't get it back. Whatever you do, we promise you that"
      Shaking in your boots yet? No, but if you say "Crypto" and "Russian hacker" half of the USA PC owners will shit themselves.

      Or, alternatively : note Dan Brown's book about a disk wearing out and someone losing all their files sold 3 copies. The one with [laughingly bad] Crypto and secret codes in it, well you might have heard of it.

    35. Re:Just wait... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So the money only goes to a particular branch? That could easily be staked out?

      Why yes, you can easily stake out the location. Now, tell me how you are going to get the FBI to stake out a Western Union in Prague in two days for someone takeing all of $10,000 from an American. The Czech government couldn't care less about a Nigerian stealing from an American. Oh, and I've called the FBI and told them that someone was trying to defraud me and I could identify the person and help stop him. They asked if I had aleady lost any money. I said "no" and they told me to go away. So good luck getting anyone to stake out anything before the theft has actually occured. And once it has occured, they are gone and you'd have to be pretty good at lying yourself to get them to come back to the Western Union for a second payment under the watchful eye of the FBI or Interpol, or whomever you think it is that might travel all around the world to catch the criminals.

    36. Re:Just wait... by TikiTDO · · Score: 1

      You know... This is a very good question.

    37. Re:Just wait... by From+A+Far+Away+Land · · Score: 1

      That bastard! How would we unlock our corrupted pron?

      Oh right - bit torrent.

    38. Re:Just wait... by Timaxe · · Score: 1

      If the virus writer actually understands public key crypto, they'd quickly realize it would be pointless to encrypt a "My Documents" folder with it...it isn't fast enough (The default "My Music" folder is in "My Documents" to give an idea of how large that folder can be). Private (shared) key encryption is much faster, which is why it is always used (yes, even in public-key crypto apps..seems ironic...but this is just about how everyone implements it as long as I can remember)

      Assuming they properly implement it to work around the speed issues (see above), we still get to do a known-plaintext attack on the encrypted data. And if the password is randomly generated by the victim, those who don't keep backups are screwed, unfortunately. Those who do keep backups could work out the key for the benefit of everyone in the case it isn't randomly generated (though using a test environment with controlled files in "My Documents" should be better).

      It basically comes down to: we know the alrgorithm, the plain-text, and the cipher-text...we could eventually work out the password. But those who do keep backups (or put the files elsewhere) wouldn't really need to worry about decrypting the file...and working it out is only useful if it isn't random...

    39. Re:Just wait... by madbawa · · Score: 1

      Why not just use a SHA-512 hash of the password? Why use a chain-saw when what you need is a nail-cutter? Public key crypto is far too cumbersome for something like this. For securing the password, just hash it and store the hash in the program. Take the hash of the password that the user inputs and compare. duh?

    40. Re:Just wait... by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      The really wonderful thing about DRM is that everything is already encrypted. The next big virus doesn't need to spend housr zero-wipeing your harddrive, it can spend a matter of seconds zero-wiping your decryption keys and you are totally screwed.

      And you won't be allowed to have a backup of your decryption keys. That's kinda the point of DRM.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    41. Re:Just wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The key will only be visible inside the virus providing that it isn't hidden actually. There are numerous anti tampering techniques a programmer can use to hide strings inside an application to stop them being printed out with the strings command for example, however this requires some basic secure programming knowledge.

    42. Re:Just wait... by arootbeer · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't have to be though...that was the OP's point. Virus makes its own one-time pad, encrypts all your data, destroys one-time pad, and tells you to send $XXX,XXX,XXX.XX to virus writer to get your data decrypted. You send $XXX,XXX,XXX.XX to virus writer, virus writer moves to a small island somewhere in the south pacific. The story ends there...virus writer doesn't have, need, or care about the one-time pad, because said virus writer never intended to follow through with decrypting your data.

    43. Re:Just wait... by sentientbeing · · Score: 1

      Its easy peasy to decrypt random data.

      You just roll some dice, then use them as the key.

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    44. Re:Just wait... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      In that case wouldn't it be easier for the virus just to write a file filled with random data? Why bother to actually encrypt anything? Just wipe the files and replace them with a big hunk of random.

    45. Re:Just wait... by deadhammer · · Score: 1

      Economics of terrorism. If you kidnap too many hostages and then end up shooting them all in the head anyways after you get the ransom, everyone starts to assume that your ransom demands are meaningless and the cash stops flowing. Same thing with this type of virus. Stop following through with your decryption, and people will simply assume that you've irrevocably deleted their file and either restore from backup or begin backing up more frequently. Same scenario: cry wolf too many times and people stop believing you, so the cash will stop flowing in.

      --
      I'll be honest, we're throwing science against the wall to see what sticks. -Cave Johnson
    46. Re:Just wait... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      (The default "My Music" folder is in "My Documents" to give an idea of how large

      Ok, fine. But, let's remember a few things:

      1.) Get a man's Word docs and you've got something financially valuable. Slashdotters may joke about losing all their pr0n, but you can always get more. You can't get another copy of that novel you're writing, or a replacement for those reports or records you need for work. And searching for .doc files is easy.

      2.) Fine, so you don't like public key crypto for the whole document. So here's a simple solution: generate a new shared key, use it to encrypt all the data, then encrypt that key with the public key and dump it somewhere on disk. Unless the shared crypto is vulnerable to the same known-plaintext attack, it should be pretty airtight if you don't start deleting till after you've encrypted the shared key, which means they probably won't notice until then, which means it's already too late by the time they start looking for a key.

      3.) Remember, these are moronic bastards who write in Visual Basic, and they're doing something illegal anyway. What's to stop them from simply deleting all your files, making a new (empty) file called "EncyrptedFiles", and claim they'll restore your documents when you pay them? All they have to do is disappear with your money. Hell, if they wanted it to look legit, they could create a gigantic sparse file in there in seconds flat, or put purely random data there.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    47. Re:Just wait... by guardian-ct · · Score: 1

      But that'd just give you ... random data ... oh, nevermind.

  7. Wow... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hmm...

    It also works for new Windows XP Professional installs.

    Strange.

    --
    Another consultant who stuck it out.

    "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
  8. umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    seriously my next guess

  9. News That's Old, Stuff that's Stale by lbmouse · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hasn't this been around for a while? According to this page, the password has been know for at least a month.

    1. Re:News That's Old, Stuff that's Stale by ajs · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Results 1 - 10 of about 69 for mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw. (0.17 seconds)"

      Nuff said.

    2. Re:News That's Old, Stuff that's Stale by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      The idea is to let the most people know about it. I'm sure not everyone checks out symantec every single day. This probably reached quite a few people who hadn't known about it.

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    3. Re:News That's Old, Stuff that's Stale by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1
      Hasn't this been around for a while? According to this page, the password has been know for at least a month.

      You're new to slashdot, arent you? Dont worry, they'll rerun the breaking story of the wheel being invented later today.

      And then Zonk will dupe it and mod down anyone who points out the dupiness of the article.

    4. Re:News That's Old, Stuff that's Stale by texaport · · Score: 1
      I searched and found Sophos and TrendMicro also put out this information. No sign of NAI disseminating this --
      I guess that's why they aren't nicknamed McAfree -- or OneCare (though I don't have Microsoft paid support)

      --
      Free information's gonna cost ya, buddy

    5. Re:News That's Old, Stuff that's Stale by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Heh. The BBC in the UK has been running this story on TV and radio in the UK all day now. I found it rather amusing at lunchtime hearing the woman tell her story. Simply because it was the story of just another person that clicked on a popup ad in IE, downloaded/ran some software and got hijacked. Yet the BBC chose to make a deal out of it. Must have been a slow news day, Iraq just doesn't interest like it used to.

      Oh well, glad I don't pay my licence fee.

    6. Re:News That's Old, Stuff that's Stale by lon3st4r · · Score: 1
      Hmmm. Talk about re-inventing the wheel!

      * lon3st4r *

    7. Re:News That's Old, Stuff that's Stale by uarch · · Score: 1

      /. - The breaking news from... last week.

  10. BTW by linvir · · Score: 0, Troll
    BTW, the 30-digit password locking the files is mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw.
    Very informative, but a txt abbreviation in the article summary brings us one step closer to the editorial quality of Digg. It should have been modified, or even better, cut.

    It's not even "by the way" at all. It follows directly from the previous sentence, and is perfectly ontopic. Get your act together.

    1. Re:BTW by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      How odd, I didn't even notice that until you pointed it out. I knew that it said "by the way", but I didn't see the "BTW".

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    2. Re:BTW by eggsurplus · · Score: 1

      If they got their act together you wouldn't have anything to complain about and then life would be boring. BTW - thanks for making my life not boring today.

    3. Re:BTW by linvir · · Score: 1
      So the moderators thought that that was a Troll... How about I demonstrate just how Underrated I am by actually producing an improved version instead:
      The user would normally be required to pay the extortionist money in order to receive the password, but apparently the virus writer made one small, critical error in coding: placing the password - mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw - in the code.
    4. Re:BTW by causality · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's odd. In my experience, the moderators tend to use "Offtopic" when they wish to say "Hey you, shut the fuck up and don't point out the truth unless it's what we want to hear." Other than the use of "Troll" instead of "Offtopic," believe me when I tell you that this is nothing new. This is simply one of the easier ways to abuse this particular system.

      I see this going on often enough that I am heading towards the conclusion that meta-moderation is not a strong enough solution for this problem. Meta-moderation is great against mods who deliberately abuse their mod points, but it doesn't work so well against the no-regard-for-facts crowd, which is much larger by comparison. However, because a partial solution is superior to no solution at all in this case, I usually meta-moderate any chance I get and when doing so, I am swift to mark idiot moderations like this as "Unfair."

      As to why the moderation is a shitty judgment call, I will give a hopefully adequate analogy: I do not blame Microsoft for producing half-ass products and profiting handsomely from it; I blame anyone who decides to reward their lack of quality with cold hard cash. By random chance, we ended up with an example of this named Microsft, but there is an entire world full of people with situational ethics waiting to exploit any situation where shit gets rewarded. If Microsoft had not so effectively capitalized on this situation, rest assured that another player would have done so. It's a giant whack-a-mole game until you address the actual problem, which is the decline of the discriminating customer. Therefore, it makes no sense to blame the guy who points out the fact that the Slashdot editors have a mediocre command of the English language. If you must place blame, this would belong to the editors for having a mediocre command of the English language combined with the audacity to still refer to themselves as "editors" because once this is established, it becomes a predictable eventuality that a user who actually cares about quality will point out their shortcomings.

      Incidentally, "Overrated" is a pansy-ass way to express your disapproval with a post, because it allows you to make a claim (that the post deserves a negative sanction) without even giving so much as a hint of reasoning explaining why.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:BTW by linvir · · Score: 1
      As to why the moderation is a shitty judgment call, I will give a hopefully adequate analogy: I do not blame Microsoft for producing half-ass products and profiting handsomely from it; I blame anyone who decides to reward their lack of quality with cold hard cash.
      Haha, I thought this was leading up to a bash at me for being a subscriber (it was a gift BTW).
    6. Re:BTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The definition of "troll" includes something to the effect of "diverting discussion from the intended topic", i.e. "BSD is dying" brings out a bunch of posts saying it isn't, when the topic is "XYZ BSD released". "The editors can't edit" is the same thing.

      It's a perfectly fair moderation. If this guy wants to bitch about editorial quality he can use his journal or website or whatever, what we are trying to discuss right now is virus-enabled extortion. Stay on topic, or do as I do and post AC when off it so people won't stumble over side-discussions.

  11. hold on... by joe+155 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    you mean that when they pay up the people actually let them get their files back? you would think any criminal would just delete them, say that they would give them back and then just take off with the money; they are already breaking the law, whats another one added to that? I wonder if this will now work like it should in the perfect open source community though, a bug is found, someone patches it, the new stuff is available within the day, maybe even better than before?

    --
    *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    1. Re:hold on... by linvir · · Score: 1

      That's a very short term source of money. It'd save a lot of work writing software, but after a few BBC stories on spammers deleting files and pretending to offer them back for $whatever, it'd dry up pretty fast.

    2. Re:hold on... by venicebeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you mean that when they pay up the people actually let them get their files back? you would think any criminal would just delete them, say that they would give them back and then just take off with the money; they are already breaking the law, whats another one added to that

      If you don't give the files back you remove the incentive for other infected users to pay up.

    3. Re:hold on... by MrSquirrel · · Score: 1

      Because then they would feel bad about lying and wouldn't be able to sleep at night. Just because they're HUGE MISLEADING BAGS 'O DOUCHE doesn't mean they don't care. Honest.

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
    4. Re:hold on... by m50d · · Score: 1
      you mean that when they pay up the people actually let them get their files back? you would think any criminal would just delete them, say that they would give them back and then just take off with the money; they are already breaking the law, whats another one added to that?

      And destroy their revenue stream? This way they can get people to pay up every time they get infected.

      --
      I am trolling
    5. Re:hold on... by nosredna · · Score: 1

      You only need one good sucker for a scam to be worth your time.

    6. Re:hold on... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Just like the money has dried up going to the 419 scammers?

    7. Re:hold on... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      you mean that when they pay up the people actually let them get their files back? you would think any criminal would just delete them, say that they would give them back and then just take off with the money; they are already breaking the law, whats another one added to that?

      Another one what? What additional law are they breaking by not doing their part of the extortion deal?

      This is a criminal business, they need their victims to know that they'll get the files back, or else they won't pay for long. Just like small mom & pop store owners need to know that they won't get shaken down at night when they close shop... if they pay the protection fee to the large men with no sense of humour.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    8. Re:hold on... by Lorean · · Score: 1

      So like, any reasonable shoplifter should shoot the cash attendant on his way out because it's just another crime.

    9. Re:hold on... by ThePyro · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If you don't give the files back you remove the incentive for other infected users to pay up.
      But that assumes that other infected users are collaborating (how else would you hear about the deletions?). And if they were collaborating then they could just share the password (like what has just occurred in this article), and the money dries up anyway.
    10. Re:hold on... by Kijori · · Score: 1

      The virus could do a number of things, such as using a random public key to encrypt - you'd have to tell the extortionist an ID string when you paid them, and they'd send back the matching private key. It doesn't take long to create a key pair - if you automate that and the key generation - just sequential, perhaps in hexadecimalto seem more complex and scare people more - you could easily create a thousand keys. You don't need incredible security - these people don't have years, or supercomputers, they want their information back ASAP or they wouldn't need to pay - so they can be fairly short keys.

    11. Re:hold on... by multimediavt · · Score: 1

      If you don't give the files back you remove the incentive for other infected users to pay up.,/i>

      You're assuming it's a single criminal collecting from everyone. I don't think that's the case.

      There is ZERO incentive for a criminal using this method of attack to actually give up the key. He's going to Federal Pound Me In The Ass prison for this crime (and associated additional charges) if he/she gets caught. Why the Hell would he actually honor the deal if he had the money in his hands, unless his nuts/ovaries were in a vice?

  12. Whoops ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ""apparently the virus writer made one small, critical error in coding: placing the password in the code""
        Well, now they won't make that mistake again.
    sometimes, leaving someting out, [ Like how they screwed up ] may make the rest of us a little safer.

  13. And Changing... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 0

    And changing the virus's password is how hard again?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:And Changing... by linvir · · Score: 1
      If the distributors simply change the string in the source code and recompile in response, someone will produce a program that extracts the password from the binary.

      But rewriting the encryption wouldn't be too hard either, and a lot harder to counter.

  14. strings? by blinder · · Score: 3, Funny

    heh, is this strings to the rescue?

    one of the best programs evar :)

    1. Re:strings? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      One of the coolest movies evar too :)

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  15. Consider this a warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you are still betting on antivirus companies to keep you safe, you should consider this a warning. There is no technical reason why the password should be recoverable. Had the author used strong public key cryptography instead of a symmetric cypher, there would be no way to get the key without the help of the virus author. The only way to be safe is to not get infected and that means you have to use your brain.

    1. Re:Consider this a warning by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which is why I just laugh when new viruses come out, it's only the idiots that will be infected (generally speaking). So long as you use your brain, your fine. If you somehow fail to use your brain then you deserve to lose your files. I in no way condone the actions of virus writers, but I don't lose sleep about it, and veiw the people who manage to contract the things as just as bad (though in a different sence).

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    2. Re:Consider this a warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that they're YOUR documents, that's a lot of known plaintext for cryptoanalysis. It's not like mom and pop can figure it out, but any decent cipherpunk should be able to handle it.

      Of course if it simply phones home to get a new password on each install, then you're screwed.

    3. Re:Consider this a warning by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      Had the author used strong public key cryptography instead of a symmetric cypher...

      I may be wrong (Like most /.ers I haven't RTFM.) but it looks to me as though the password wasn't encrypted at all, just stuck their in plain text. Considering the work that went into writing the virus in the first place, not encrypting the password was just plain lazy.

      Even better than encrypting it would have been if the virus had taken the password, phoned it home and gotten it verified. That way, each victem could get a different one, making it useless to share yours with anybody else.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re:Consider this a warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you know what's in the files, what do you need the key for? Ok, ok, you know what was in some of the files. Then the virus will compress the files before encrypting them. Is there even a cryptoanalytical attack on AES and RSA? I don't think so. Seriously, if a broke or pissed off cryptogeek ever teams up with a virus author, gullible people all over the world are in serious trouble.

    5. Re:Consider this a warning by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter whether you use your brain or not, or whether you get infected or not, if you have a good backup policy and follow it. Shit happens: this, to me, is effectively no different than a hard drive crash. In other words, either you've stashed your important files somewhere safe ... or you haven't.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:Consider this a warning by Raenex · · Score: 1
      The only way to be safe is to not get infected and that means you have to use your brain.

      The typical computer user is just not technical enough to understand all the dangers. Even if you are compenent enough to not install software from email or pop-ups, imagine all the software you have to trust with your data. All it takes is one rogue coder to do something malicious.

      The real problem isn't that people are stupid; it's that operating systems are so permissive. Why does installing some random software give it carte blanche access to the machine? Linux is no better in this respect.

    7. Re:Consider this a warning by pentalive · · Score: 1

      In this case the user's documents folder is the one mangled. No matter how strong the security on a system do you want the system to stand between you and your files?

      >exec wordproc file=myresume
      --sys: Allow "wordproc" to open "myresume" for read? y/n : y
      --sys: Are you SURE? y/n : y
      (word processing session ensues)
      (user Saves)
      --sys: Allow "wordproc" to open "myresume" for write y/n : y
      --sys: Are you SURE? y/n : y
      --sys: Do you know the old copy version will be DESTROYED? y/n : y

      I know, perhaps we need versioning like VMS used to have, then any file opend
      for write or append is copied to a new version then writed or appended to. The OS write protects the old version..

    8. Re:Consider this a warning by Raenex · · Score: 1
      No matter how strong the security on a system do you want the system to stand between you and your files?

      Yes, I do. Consider the thousands of programs and millions of lines of code that are on a typical pc. Do you want them all to have carte blanche access to your data? The ability to erase it? To send it across the internet?

      [example of system asking 5 questions to edit a file]

      Take a look at The SkyNet Virus: Why it is Unstoppable; How to Stop it. In particular, I recommend watching the wmv (it's a 100 meg download). At 11 minutes in the speaker addresses your exact concern.

    9. Re:Consider this a warning by pentalive · · Score: 1

      Well, I am not going to download and run something, but I did go look at the abstract... but we can still discuss it..

      A virus is using my own rights with my own files, in effect it's me running a program to delete or copy or encrypt my own files.. Even if I am running under the least ammount of authority, I still have to be able to work with my own files otherwise the computer becomes just an electronic book, a reference to data someone else has given me.

      May I suggest a way to protect my files even from me... Versioning, Every time a file is opened for write or append it is acutally copied. The OS should protect the n-1 recent copy so nothing, not even the system is allowed to over-write or erase it. n-2 is unprotected again and n is the current working copy. If a virus tries to delete or scramble a file it can only effect a new copy it makes itself....

      Wait even then a virus can cause havoc..

      1) Erase all older versions leaves Vn and Vn-1(good protected)
      2) Update Vn with blank Leaves Vn(blank) Vn-1(good-protected) Vn-2(old)
      3) Upatee Vn with blank again Vn(blank) Vn-1(blank-protected) Vn-2(good) Vn-3

      repeat once more to delete and leave only blank files (or encrypted files)

      Nope - I guess as long as I can write to my own files a virus can damage them.
      Although now it's twice or three times the work to destroy a user's own files.

      Do backups.

    10. Re:Consider this a warning by Raenex · · Score: 1
      Well, I am not going to download and run something

      The video is engaging and gives you some "ah ha!" moments. You can probably stream it in your browser and watch just the first 20 minutes of it if you don't want to download it. Trust me, you won't regret it.

      The OS should protect the n-1 recent copy so nothing, not even the system is allowed to over-write or erase it.

      As you point out, this doesn't work. There's also another problem: It is unusable! Sometimes you really do want to erase files and all their backups.

      Do backups.

      How does that prevent a trojan from snooping on your online banking transactions and sending your password across the internet? Do you realize that every line of code on your computer has the capability to do this?

      Even if I am running under the least ammount of authority, I still have to be able to work with my own files.

      The nice thing about Principle of Least Authority is that it is both usable and secure. Even though, you, the user, have full authority, random software that you run does not inherit that authority. It avoids asking you a zillion security questions by automatically granting authority where it makes sense to. In the case of an editor, it is the file dialog box that grants the application privilege to edit the file. If you, the user, are opening a file, then the system knows you want that application to be able to edit that file. It doesn't give it permission to edit any other files, or to send that data across the net.

      The current security situation is untenable. We have to move to a Least Authority model. Really, watch the video. I can't do it justice here. It's well worth your time.

    11. Re:Consider this a warning by pentalive · · Score: 1

      I am on a dial-up, 20 min of video means 60 min of download.

      Point to you- deleteing files.
      Point to you- Backups usless against spyware.

      Ok, I see how this will work. My legitimate program will call the OS and say "Please Ask the user which file to open and open the file the user says and let me have a 'connection' to it," Rather than "Please open file /etc/passwd" fopen will no longer be available.

      Hmm, Now is there anyplace where a program would open some standard file all the time without having to ask the user to find it? hmmm. There will probably be a separate call for "please open a scratch file". How abouit opening spell check dictionaries?

    12. Re:Consider this a warning by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Now is there anyplace where a program would open some standard file all the time without having to ask the user to find it? hmmm. There will probably be a separate call for "please open a scratch file".

      Yes, I believe so. Each application should be allowed to open temporary files.

      How abouit opening spell check dictionaries?

      I think read access to harmless, shared stuff like spelling dictionaries, fonts, etc. would be allowed automatically. Of course, eventually a program will want to do something it has no authority to do, and the user will have to decide. The important thing is that a lot of the time no questions need to be asked, and if some malware wants to do something inappropriate it should be obvious.

      I'm not an expert, though. If you have further questions you're best off asking them at cap-talk.

  16. If it's the same password... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it's the same password for every infection, wouldn't it be likely that the first victim who actually paid for it would then release it to the wild to screw-over the extortionist ASAP?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:If it's the same password... by Spad · · Score: 1

      Only if they *knew* that the password is the same for everyone, which they didn't - until now.

    2. Re:If it's the same password... by microbee · · Score: 1

      Huh? So the virus author was depending on the fact that no one would be smart (silly) enough to assume this password was universal? Or due to human nature every victim would just keep their mouth shut?

      I say stupid virus.

    3. Re:If it's the same password... by Kaptain+Kruton · · Score: 1

      The victim might release it if they did not have to worry about maintaining a public image. But if it was a company dealing with the personal information of many people, do you think it would wish the public to know its security is poor? Would you think highly of a medical company that had private information infected or some company that could not access their own data? Do you think giving in and paying money to criminals portrays a strong business image? Unless the company is willing to let the public assume they are insecure and weak, they will not publically admit to paying for it.

    4. Re:If it's the same password... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      They were dumb enough to click on a popup ad, download the software and run it in the first place. Think about it. :-)

    5. Re:If it's the same password... by nogginthenog · · Score: 1

      Or sell it to other infectees!

  17. From the TFA by BaltikaTroika · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The most interesting part of TFA: "Victims are only told the password if they buy drugs from one of three online pharmacies."

    Are online pharmacies so unregulated that criminals can extort people as a means for advertising?

    Wow.

    1. Re:From the TFA by geoffspear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they can get away with illegally selling prescription drugs without a prescription and sending out billions of emails advertising the fact (as well as hacking PCs to use as zombies to send out said emails), they can probably get away with a little extortion on top of it.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    2. Re:From the TFA by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Or at least pretending to sell prescription drugs on the Internet. I can't imagine that any of them actually send out the illegal pharmaceuticals. It's not like they're expecting to maintain a long-term relationship with you.

      Maybe I'm wrong. Has anybody ever actually gotten meds from one of these guys?

    3. Re:From the TFA by MrSquirrel · · Score: 1

      YESYESYES I DO I get my ADHD meds from these sites and they ship it so faaaaaaaaaassssst weeeeeeeeeeeee... and for some reason I don't get all depresssssed like when I'm on my regular meds weeeeeeeeeee yay!!!!!01!10!11!!100!!!101!!!110!!111!!!1000!!! weee, counting in binary weeeeee!! weeeeee!!! *dies*

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
    4. Re:From the TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      erm, yes, sure. you see, I *had* to buy all those penis enlargement pills or they wouldn't let me have access to my files. I mean, it was that or the hair loss stuff and we all know that just doesn't work. :-)

    5. Re:From the TFA by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 1

      Knock knock

      Who's there?

      A kid with ADD

      A kid with ADD who?

      Let's go ride bikes.

      --
      Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    6. Re:From the TFA by shiafu · · Score: 1
      Q: How many ADD kids does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

      A: Hey, you wanna go play soccer?!

    7. Re:From the TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the pharamacies are just based in other countries (like Canada) and will only sell you certain drugs and "prescribe" them only after you answer a series of questions (other require you send in your prescription from a doctor). I used MagellanRX to buy Cialis (the generic name for OrthoCyclen or whatever... any way, I Googled the drug to make sure it was legit and then Googled it again after the product arrived to make sure everything looked legit) for my girlfriend (because she didn't want to go to the doctor to get an actual prescription... partially, I think, out of fear her parents would find out even though she was in college at the time...) It did its job properly, so at least some of them are legit (or send real products--don't know about the whole legal angle, which is why I'm posting anonymously...)

    8. Re:From the TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      to buy Cialis [...] for my girlfriend (because she didn't want to go to the doctor to get an actual prescription... partially, I think, out of fear her parents would find out even though she was in college at the time...)

      Er, you'd really have thought their parents would have found out their gender by the time they reached college age. They seem to have confused you, too, though, unless you mean "girlfriend" in some kind of metaphorical sense.

      (Wikipedia to the rescue: Cialis is a drug used to treat male erectile dysfunction.)
    9. Re:From the TFA by WillyMF1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can see the future of TV advertising on its way now. "Watch Survivor:XXI next Monday night and pay attention to the scroll bar during the commercials in order to get your documents back!"

    10. Re:From the TFA by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      erm, yes, sure. you see, I *had* to buy all those penis enlargement pills...

      Yes, but you didn't have to take them, did you? It's a shame that, although it does make your penis longer, it doesn't increase the total volumn of it. How are you going to explain to your Significant Other that you're penis is 14" long and .5" across?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    11. Re:From the TFA by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't a lightbulb be a little small, and uncomfortable, to screw in?

    12. Re:From the TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is ridiculous, anyone could make a purchase with their credit card at the online pharmacy, but having advised their bank of the situation. Then after getting the password it is easy to cancel the credit card transaction with the bank.

    13. Re:From the TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The online pharmacies that do dubious stuff do not give real details to the card processors. Or if they do, they lose their money when the card processors find out.

    14. Re:From the TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we need to allow US citizens to purchase drugs from these online pharmacies since Big Pharma (insert ominous music) is screwing us all.

      (at least Merck and GSK aren't encrypting your data)

  18. Erm call me stupid but . . . by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

    placing the password in the code

    How else are you supposed to do it? Or did TFA mean that it was stored in plaintext in the code?

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by Amouth · · Score: 1

      you could always do it as a math function.. where you proccess the inputed text to see if it is valid.. the trick is that most people just use known fucntions or arn't good at creating them

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    2. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by cperciva · · Score: 1

      A more intelligent (or crypto-knowledgeable) virus author would have generated a symmetric key at encryption-time, and then encrypted that key using a public (e.g., RSA) key stored in the binary. The extortion would then work by selling access to the RSA-decryption oracle.

      Fortunately, most black hats are stupid.

    3. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by Spad · · Score: 1

      By randomly generating the key at runtime and then sending it back to the virus author?

    4. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      I believe the password wasn't hashed or anything, it is rooky mistake.

    5. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There exist functions that no one knows how to invert. So you store f(password) precomputed in the code. The code would look like "if (f(guess) == f_password)..."

    6. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by tiptone · · Score: 1

      Store an md5 hash of the password, then hash the input and compare it to the stored hash. No visible password or easy method to reverse the hash to get the password.

      --
      Please don't read my sig.
    7. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      Store an md5 hash of the password, then hash the input and compare it to the stored hash. No visible password or easy method to reverse the hash to get the password.

      Yea... NOONE gets the password this way, even the extortionist. That's quite some plan there, tiptone.. :)

    8. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by znaps · · Score: 1

      Err, the extortionist has the plain text password all along, in his head. He MD5s it and places that in the code, which also does an MD5 hash of what the user enters, and compares the two.

      Not rocket science.

    9. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by tiptone · · Score: 1

      You clearly didn't get it, go back and read again, the big hint comes here:

      Store an md5 hash of the password...

      You see how the extortionist already had the password and used it to to get the md5 hash? Actually that is some plan, and also how most username/password schemes work. No need to keep the password around and no way to get the password from the hash (recently discovered collisons aside).

      --
      Please don't read my sig.
    10. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by XMyth · · Score: 1

      Heh....how exactly does the virus encrypt the files using this password it doesn't know?

      The answer to this problem is public key crypto...not hashing the password.

    11. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a wild observation there buddy, but mighn't the extortionist already know the password? Why would he need to get it from the virus?

    12. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by bill_kress · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally, worst case I'd write a little algorithm to generate it (if I wanted a constant password that is).

      More likely I'd write one that created a hashcode from the completed compression, encoded the hashcode in base64, told the user to enter it when he bought his drugs then used a second algorithm online to encode that result into a specific "key" that would only work for that one, umm, "Customer". If possible I'd write the algorithm in a custom bytecode language so that it wasn't just a straightforward decompile.

      Of course, if I was going to go through all that effort I'd just write an online casino or something and steal my money the old fashion way.

    13. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      GP was suggesting a less-lame way to hardcode a password. The extortionist knows the password, having hardcoded it. The password isn't sitting in the binary easily read. Still vulnerable to posting this password on the ubernet once bought or bruteforced, which explains the better algorithms being discussed.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    14. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      You clearly didn't get it, go back and read again, the big hint comes here:

      Store an md5 hash of the password...


      Oh I get it pretty well, but what you're missing is the context. We're talking not a login scheme of a remote server, but encypting a file locally with a cryptographic key.

      If you don't have key, you have nothing to encrypt it with. The program may try to request a login, but you can close it and seek the file with the actual data and parse it directly since it's not encrypted.

      And if it's encrypted, you can't encrypt data with a password using just its hd5 hash. Or if you would use the hash itself.. then there's no point in hashing it at all.

    15. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      Just a wild observation there buddy, but mighn't the extortionist already know the password? Why would he need to get it from the virus?

      Because, "buddy", the weakness we're discussing is that the password used is in the code and the same on all machines.

      If it's randomly generated for each machine, the extortionist no longer knows the password. If it's not, then it's easy to break by analyzing the code, like it happened.

    16. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      GP was suggesting a less-lame way to hardcode a password. The extortionist knows the password, having hardcoded it.

      A password to what? Since MD5 hashes are not reversible, the software itself can't obtain back the key it should use for the crypting.

      Again, we're not talking remote login system, but cryptography, two different things. And with crypting a file, the software that crypts, needs to know the exact key it'll use. It can't use a hash.

    17. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by grassy_knoll · · Score: 4, Funny
      How else are you supposed to do it? Or did TFA mean that it was stored in plaintext in the code?


      I was confused by that as well. I presume plaintext, since storing a hash and comparing a hash generated from user input seems standard practice... at least in the non-virus writting community.

      Ya think the writter had a PHB leaning on him to meet deadline?
    18. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing a really big point.

    19. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by thePig · · Score: 1

      Maybe the Virus writer did a mistake and did *not* use cryptography.
      Or
      The antivirus guys paid the Virus Writer for the password and published it.
      Since it is the same for everybody, it comes out as cracked.

      Next time, the virus writer would be more careful and would generate a password for each m/c he infects

      So, there.

      --
      rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
    20. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear suv4x4,

      All the people who are explaining it to you know what they are talking about. Think.

    21. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing a really big point.

      Such as?

    22. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by mypalmike · · Score: 1

      The article could be wrong, but it seems to claim that the virus uses a fixed password no matter what is being encrypted. The poster was suggesting that a simple one-way crypt function could encrypt that password, not the files, making the password unrecoverable.

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    23. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by Binestar · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing a really big point.

      No, you are missing the point. The code needs to know the password to use to excrypt the file. With just an MD5 hash of the password there is no way for the code to get the password itself to actually use. You're missing the context of this. it's not a decryption routine. It's an encryption routine.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    24. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by XMyth · · Score: 1

      Well yea, but I mean the virus isn't that threatening if the files aren't encrypted...and if they are encrypted then the encryption key is what's important.

      I see though, he was assuming the password and encryption key weren't the same and I was assuming they were.

    25. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by mypalmike · · Score: 1

      Given a fixed password, P, and a non-invertable function, f:

      The original post was simply suggeting storing e = f(P) rather than P itself. Then the code does:

      inputPassword = getPasswordFromVictim();
      if( e == f(inputPassword) )
            passwordWasCorrect();
      else
            sorryWrongPassword();

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    26. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by tiptone · · Score: 1

      I get what you're saying now, but that's not what I thought you were implying from the beginning. You said:

      NOONE gets the password this way

      I was answering that portion, yes in the context of the virus there would be no way for it to get the original password used to do the encrypting. I was only speaking about the checking of the password for decryption, forest for the trees and all that.

      --
      Please don't read my sig.
    27. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      Dear suv4x4,

      All the people who are explaining it to you know what they are talking about. Think.


      To say that you had to drop to AC?

      I also know what I'm talking about, given this is my job.

      The MD5 hash "solution" can be hacked immediately in 4 easy ways:

      1. The password is still the same since the virus author knows is, hence it's not generated randomly on the spot: so the first company/guy to find the password (for an md5 hash it's not hard to find a collision) spreads it around the internet.

      2. patch a jump command in the trojan code so that it jumps to the decrypt code without comparing the hash

      3. make up a password, hash it, and change the hash in the binary to your hash. then use your password

      4. skip this altogether and extract the files directly by analyzing the format of the storage (if it's a popular format, even better).

      That was easy, no. Let's compare it to what are your options if the file is actually encrypted with a strong and long key:

      1. you have a working model of a quantum computer in front of you with enough q-bits to handle the key size, and you use it to hack the encryption using brute force attack.

      2. you pay the extortion fee and await responce from the extortionist

      If this is beyond understanding for all of you, maybe you should stop arguing and listen.

    28. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by suv4x4 · · Score: 1
      inputPassword = getPasswordFromVictim();
      if( e == f(inputPassword) )
                  passwordWasCorrect();
      else
                  sorryWrongPassword();


      Interesting, what will happen if I open the compiled version of this code and change just one byte to JMP instruction to get a rough equivalent of this:
      inputPassword = getPasswordFromVictim();
      if( true )
            passwordWasCorrect();
      else
            sorryWrongPassword();
    29. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's one (trivial) way right off the top of my head.

      Virus generates a new private/public key pair for each victim and sends the pair back to criminal. Virus encrypts files with the public key and throws the private key away. Virus then demands money and tells the user to send the public key in with their payment. When payment is received, criminal uses the public key victim sends in to lookup the matching private one. Then sends private key to victim so that they can decrypt their files.

      In this scheme there is no common key, and no decryption key on the victim's computer by the time the virus demands extortion. There are still weak links to this scheme, but it is definitely stronger than what the actual criminal did.

    30. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...a rooky mistake"

      Kind of like spelling rookie incorrectly? ;-)

    31. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by jrockway · · Score: 1

      > If possible I'd write the algorithm in a custom bytecode language so that it wasn't just a straightforward decompile.

      Yeah... then the person trying to get their files back would attach a debugger to your bytecode interperter instead of your virus. In the end, the amount of additional work for the white hat would be nil.

      (Keep in mind that assembly is bytecode too. It's just an easier-to-read form... "AAAAAAAA" is valid x86 byte code, and translates to "inc %ecx, inc %ecx, ..." in assembly.)

      --
      My other car is first.
    32. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      haha! wow that was bad, thanks :)

    33. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by mypalmike · · Score: 1

      How do you write a jump instruction for my handmade bytecode-interpretted vm? And doesn't the CRC, which I run inlined tests of throughout my code, of the file change when you modify that instruction?

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    34. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by Binestar · · Score: 1

      Which is fine and all, except that THE PROGRAM ENCRYPTS THE DOCUMENTS. It has to know the password it uses to encrypt the document. Sure, if it was a decryption routine, that is fine, it never needs to know the actual password, just a hash, etc of the password. But a hash of a password will not encrypt something the same way as the password itself.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    35. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Funny

      How do you write a jump instruction for my handmade bytecode-interpretted vm? And doesn't the CRC, which I run inlined tests of throughout my code, of the file change when you modify that instruction?

      You have a full-blown hand-made bytecode interpreter now? Let me guess how this is gonna continue:

      ME: I whip out my advanced lexical analyzer and break your bytecode into well laid out PDF specification

      YOU: I point a laser gun at you, and it's loaded.

      ME: Batman comes through the window to help me.

      YOU: Superman comes makes a hole through the ceiling and comes to help me.

      ME: Superman? What, we'll f*cking use Superman to break into encrypted files? At least Batman is ok with technology.

      YOU: Batman is just a geek: strip the technology off and what remains is a middle-aged guy with obsession over flying mice.

      ME: Bats are NOT MICE, DUH!!

    36. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      You could, I don't know, have the virus delete the portion of itself that contains the password.

      You'd want a life cycle divided into propagation and attack, naturally: in propagation, it looks for new computers to infect and possibly checks for updates via IRC. During attack, it encrypts the files and deletes the key.

      Of course, in this case we could use a randomly generated key and send it to the virus writer.

    37. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by Alsee · · Score: 1

      ME: I whip out my advanced lexical analyzer

      Would that be vi or emacs?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    38. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by mypalmike · · Score: 1

      Which is fine and all, except that THE PROGRAM ENCRYPTS THE DOCUMENTS.

      Come on people, give it a LITTLE thought first!

      1. Authenticate on user-facing password. User-facing password is never stored in plaintext, making retrieval virtually impossible.
      2. Encrypt/decrypt document using different password, possibly stored in plaintext.

      I'm not saying it's a great approach. It's simple though, and better than the one they used.

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    39. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by mypalmike · · Score: 1

      I was kidding too. Anyhow, you really want things spelled out?

      1. Authenticate against user-facing password. User-facing password not stored in plaintext.

      2. Separate password, possibly stored in plaintext, encrypts and decrypts the data.

      Not necessarily great. But it's better than what these guys did because it makes the user-facing password virtually unrecoverable. So Joe Blow end user would have to download a tool to get his stuff back, rather than just typing in the published password.

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    40. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct, but I've cracked games that used a mini-interpreter along with overwriting/rewriting a fixed area that the interpreter was running in it is an order of magnitude harder.

      Plus if your bytecode and interpreter are designed in order to increase complexity.. I really think you are being optimistic... it would be hard.

    41. Re:Erm call me stupid but . . . by znaps · · Score: 1

      Using the hash :p

  19. weird by mr_tommy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Strike anyone else as odd that the BBC (et al.) ran this story big time - made the world service - on the same day that Microsoft announced their all in one security suite, that, by coincidence, protects against such virus'?

    1. Re:weird by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 1

      oh, you mean the 50 dollar a year service that you have to pay to Microsoft in addition to the cost of their OS just to keep it free of viruses? Nah, its just a coincidence, they've been figuring out how to make more money from everyone for a long while now, they only just now figured they could use their own vulnerabilities as a strong selling point for another product.

    2. Re:weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BBC often has news/documentaries that are favourable to Microsoft. What makes it even more suspicious is that this has been a known scam for quite a while now. It wouldn't surprise me if they had even mentioned the security suite in the article.

    3. Re:weird by maxume · · Score: 1

      Not really. It's the birthday problem wearing a swim suit. Or something like that.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  20. Profit! by insanechemist · · Score: 3, Funny

    1) Write ransom virus
    2) Release
    3) ....
    4) Profit!

    Wait - that actually works I think

    1. Re:Profit! by 50m31sl4sh. · · Score: 2, Funny

      You forgot the third step - mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw.

      --
      Rediculous is ridiculous!
  21. How effective can this really be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if the virus writer had used public/private key encryption, once the key was given to one victim after the ransom was paid, the key would almost definately be all over the net.
          If he had used a different key-pair per infected user, then everytime the virus was infecting a new machine it would have to contact the source to save the new key-pair and a marker to identify the machine it had just infected, to be able to associate the right key-pair with the victim. This by itself is not a great idea because the source could then be identified by the cops and action could be taken.
          As far as the the mode of paying the ransom is concerned I wonder which these parmacy sites are and why action cannot be taken against them.
    How can this possibly be fool-proof?

    1. Re:How effective can this really be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The virus does this:
      - Generate random symmetric key A
      - Use A to encrypt files
      - Use stored public key B to encrypt A to C
      - Store C along with the encrypted files
      - Send extortion message asking for money and C
      - Exit (removing all traces of A)

      The criminal does this:
      - Wait for money and C
      - Use private key to decrypt C to A
      - Send A to user

      The user does this:
      - Pay
      - Send C to criminal
      - Wait for A (useless to other victims)
      - Use A to decrypt files

      When someone does this, all decryption challenge screensavers will have something worthy of the CPU time...

  22. MOD PARENT DOWN by joeyspqr · · Score: 0, Troll

    -1 "WHERE YOU BEEN?"

    he's just realized that Windows is the front end of a racket?

    [full disclosure - posted from a cube on an XP install running Office+Publisher+Visio+Project]
    [[will testify after placement in witness protection]]

    --
    +1 fashionably cynical
  23. password entry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone know how I can put in this password using the archive utility built in to OS X? Oh, wait! I don't have the virus! I'm running OS X!

  24. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're wrong. You can cypher it with the public key and it can't be recovered without the private key, which is safe at his computer.

    1. Re:Wrong by Xugumad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're both wrong :)

      First up, a man in the middle attack requires that someone spotting the virus on its way to your computer, and re-writing the public key parts. So, not really an issue here. Mostly, the poster appears to be confused with using public keys for verifying identity.

      Problem is, however, that the same private key would unlock all ransomed files. The virus actually needs to be able to get a new public key for each computer in infects, which means having a remote site accessible for it to register with, and request a new key from.

      I'm assuming fairly standard RSA here. There is the possibility that someone could make a more complex cipher; so you start with a private/public key, and the virus carries the public key. On arrival at a system, it generates another public/private key pair, from the public key, which it would encrypt the files with, then destroys the private key. The public key it just generated would then be sent back with payment, the virus author creates a unique decryption key from that public key, and their private key, and sends it in turn back. Hell, it may be possible to do this with RSA, I'm not that much into crypto.

      Luckily, anyone bright enough to figure that all out can probably earn plenty of money legally :)

      Going back to stuff I should be doing, now.

    2. Re:Wrong by H0ek · · Score: 1
      I'm not that much into crypto.

      Had me fooled.
      --
      H0ek
      Think you're smart? Prove you've got brains!
    3. Re:Wrong by onlysolution · · Score: 1

      Have fun waiting for a few hours encoding some guys multi-GB My Documents folder with a 1024+bit public key... There is a reason we don't use 2-key systems for everything after all.

    4. Re:Wrong by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      What I really meant, is I don't have the mathematics background to really get into cryptography. I know how it all works from a using it in the real world point of view (particularly, SSL), and happen to know how the maths for RSA works because it's actually remarkably simple, but most of this stuff I'm as lost as everyone else :)

    5. Re:Wrong by EvanED · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The virus actually needs to be able to get a new public key for each computer in infects, which means having a remote site accessible for it to register with, and request a new key from.

      No it doesn't. You've got the idea right, but your version is a bit more complicated than it needs to be.

      Look at real-world implementations of public-key encryption systems. [I know PGPDisk does this. I don't know if PGP does it for other, smaller things. Almost all the encrypted network protocols I've studied do this too.] You usually don't encrypt data with a public key; it's too performance consuming. What you do is generate a random key for a symmetric cypher, encrypt the data with that, then encrypt the generated key with the public key. In network protocols, this generated key is what you'll see called the session key. When your recipient gets the data, they'll decrypt the session key using their private key, then decrypt the data with their session key.

      A virus like the one under discussion could implement this very easily. No need to mess with RSA on two levels, or generate another keypair, just a symmetric key. The virus generates a symmetric key [no need to log onto an external server to request one, just pull from the system clock, /dev/random, whatever], encrypts $HOME using it, encrypts the symmetric key with the extortionist's public key. It then destroys the information in $HOME and discards the unencrypted symmetric key. When you go to get your password, you have to give the extortionist the encrypted symmetric key. He decrypts it with his private key, and gives you the unencrypted key.

    6. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong too. :D

      The virus only needs to generate a random key for symmetric crypto, use it to encrypt the data, and then encrypt the random key with public key which is included in the program. Next the encrypted key is saved so that the victim can send it to the extortionist for decryption.

      Only one public keypair needed.

    7. Re:Wrong by fizzup · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ah, yes, the zero knowledge transfer of knowledge.

      Black hat: "Give me $500 for the password to decrypt your data."
      White hat posing as victim: "Okay." (gives $500)
      Black hat: "mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw" (gives private key)
      White hat: "Thanks, now I'm going to go tell the New York Times."
      Black hat: "Nuts."

    8. Re:Wrong by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, yes, the zero knowledge transfer of knowledge.

      Black hat: "Give me $500 for the password to decrypt your data."
      White hat posing as victim: "Okay." (gives $500)
      Black hat: "mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw" (gives private key)
      White hat: "Thanks, now I'm going to go tell the New York Times."
      Black hat: "Nuts."

      Easily avoided:

      1. The BH makes a keypair for asymmetric crypto.
      2. The BH puts the public key into the virus and keeps the private key.
      3. The virus generates a random key for symmetric crypto and uses it to crypt the victims files.
      4. The virus crypts the symmetric key with the public key and destroys the original (never stores it anywhere).
      5. The virus gives the crypted symmetric key to the victim. Since it is crypted, the victim cannot use it to decrypt his files.
      6. The victim sends the money and the crypted symmetric key to the BH.
      7. The BH uses his private key to decrypt the symmetric key.
      8. The BH sends the decrypted symmetric key back to the victim.
      9. The victim uses the decrypted symmetric key to uncrypt his files.
      10. Even if the victim tells the decrypted key to the world, it is useless, since the key is randomly generated at the victims computer when the virus activates and thus extremely likely to be different for every victim.

      The only weakness here is that the victim must be able to contact the Black Hat, since otherwise he couldn't pay. But that's the weakness of every extortion scheme.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    9. Re:Wrong by guardian-ct · · Score: 1

      The real weakness of extortion is the lack of cooperative script-writers in the real world.

  25. Thank the GPL by mypalmike · · Score: 4, Funny

    The virus writers could have used a GPL-based crypt library, but realized that there would be legal issues involved, requiring them to open-source the whole virus.

    --
    There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    1. Re:Thank the GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't joke, some of the bot code that is used to infect 1000's of PCs and form bot nets is GPL licenced!.

    2. Re:Thank the GPL by TheDreadSlashdotterD · · Score: 1

      Someday there will be an open source virus, and that will be the day that PCs all over the world scream in agony, horror, and defeat.

      --
      I have nothing to say.
    3. Re:Thank the GPL by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      The virus writers could have used a GPL-based crypt library, but realized that there would be legal issues involved, requiring them to open-source the whole virus.

      They could have just used Tom St Denis' crypto library. The fucker is too busy posting on Slashdot to pursue any legal action against them.

  26. Due to high oil prices... by avatar4d · · Score: 4, Funny

    today's Sesame Street program has been brought to you by:

    mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vm and w

    --
    Confucius say: "Man who associates with smarter men than himself is smarter than the men he associates with."
  27. Extortionware ? by ch-chuck · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow, I can see it now. New user clicks on "check email", sees "I Love You!" and clicks on the attachment. A popup window with a gun pointing out the screen appears and the message: "Alright buddy, this is a stickup - Type your bank account password in the field below and click 'submit' or everything in My Documents gets deleted!! I'm not kidding!!! Do it NOW!!!!"

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    1. Re:Extortionware ? by pxuongl · · Score: 1

      geeze... if that happens, just pull the plug on your computer, take out the hard drive, mount it in linux or something, and backup your files...

    2. Re:Extortionware ? by Grrr · · Score: 1

      Friends don't let friends use My* subdirectories.

      <grrr />

    3. Re:Extortionware ? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      That would only work if My Documents was more valuable than your bank account.

      You've either got crappy finances, or some damn good pr0n!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  28. Thank the editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And probably /. readers have been posting this for about a month, and getting it rejected by the wonderful /. editors.

  29. Arrest? by crossmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Has this guy been arrested? It shouldn't have taken a genius law enforcement officer to make a payment for this and track it and then pick the guy up?

    1. Re:Arrest? by hisstory+student · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Sheesh. Why wasn't this the very first comment?

      --
      Heard any good sigs lately?
    2. Re:Arrest? by Intron · · Score: 1
      You're a genius. Why hasn't anyone thought of this before? OK, here's the trail for the last pharmacy spam I received. Go get him!

      jwhois 218.93.168.80
      role - Chinanet Jiangsu
      address - No.268,Hanzhong Road,Nanjing 210029
      country - CN
      phone - 86-25-6588783
      fax-no - 86-25-6588740
      e-mail - ip@jsinfo.net
      remarks - www.jsinfo.net
      notify - ip@jsinfo.net
      mnt-by - MAINT-CHINANET-JS
      source - APNIC
      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    3. Re:Arrest? by crossmr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Following a payment is a lot easier than following a spam e-mail.

      When spammers send out e-mails they're not looking for respones, and don't particularly care if people can get back to them. They're pointing them to websites.

      This guy was probably taking payment online via some online system. Depending where its based, its possible they could get the records and track this guy down.

    4. Re:Arrest? by bigmouth_strikes · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, online fraud is low priority since it mostly hurts people, not corporations. Have you seen 50 cops raid a spammer or a botnet owner ? Whatabout 50 cops raiding an ISP that host a torrent site ?

      --
      Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
    5. Re:Arrest? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      so we make it a priority by driving them nuts with complaints until they have no choice but to address it ;)

  30. Re:Obligatory Space Balls Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't forget!
    President Skroob: ... and change the combination on my luggage!

  31. DMCA Violation by alcmaeon · · Score: 1

    Technically, I would say this virus is encrypted, so wouldn't broadcasting a way to "crack" the virus on slashdot be a violation of the DMCA?

    1. Re:DMCA Violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      I'm as anti-DMCA as anyone, so it may seem odd that I'm arguing this point. Here's why I am: Flawed arguments against the DMCA will only serve to make the anti-DMCA position as a whole appear weak. In matters of law and public policy, appearing weak makes a position weak. So...

      I constantly see people asserting that every case where a password is broken is a DMCA violation; it is not. DMCA is still COPYRIGHT law. Anit-circumvention talks about circumvention of COPYRIGHT PROTECTION mechanisms (DRM). The virus author was using encryption (poorly), and encryption is a technique that can be used in DRM, but the virus author was not implementing DRM, nor in any other way using crypto to assert his/her copyright. Hence, "breaking" the encryption does not violate the anit-circumvention part of the DMCA (nor any other part).

    2. Re:DMCA Violation by crazed+gremlin · · Score: 1

      Um..... scuse me? DMCA is copyright protection oh man I got infected with this ransomware (c)

    3. Re:DMCA Violation by alcmaeon · · Score: 1
      "No.

      I'm as anti-DMCA as anyone, so it may seem odd that I'm arguing this point. Here's why I am: Flawed arguments against the DMCA will only serve to make the anti-DMCA position as a whole appear weak. In matters of law and public policy, appearing weak makes a position weak. So...

      I constantly see people asserting that every case where a password is broken is a DMCA violation; it is not. DMCA is still COPYRIGHT law. Anit-circumvention talks about circumvention of COPYRIGHT PROTECTION mechanisms (DRM). The virus author was using encryption (poorly), and encryption is a technique that can be used in DRM, but the virus author was not implementing DRM, nor in any other way using crypto to assert his/her copyright. Hence, "breaking" the encryption does not violate the anit-circumvention part of the DMCA (nor any other part)."

      It was a joke. But, since you mention it, your analysis is only correct if the file that was subsituted for the files in the My Documents directory is not properly copyrighted. To copyright it, the virus writer just has to attach a copyright notice and reduce it to a machine readable form (already done, obviously). If it is properly copyrighted, then cracking the code gives access to the copyrighted material and subjects the aiders and abetters to potential civil and criminal penalties.

      We simply don't have enough information from the article to make this determination, and I am skeptical that any virus writers will be filing civil actions to protect their rights anyway, but it would make an interesting lawschool hypothetical.

  32. Obvious problem by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There seems to be one glaring problem with the idea of ransomware:
    Eventually you're gonna piss off the wrong person.
    Imagine the DoD or the CIA getting hit with this. They lookup the registar of the sites you are supposed to buy the drugs from. They then go visit that registar's main office (borders, what borders? we're the CIA, we've never paid attention to soviernty in the past.). They politely ask the registar to hand over all information on the person paying for the domain name (for the definition of polite which involves pointing guns at and kicking people in the head). Once they know who is paying for the web sites (credit info/check info), they visit that person and politely ask for the password to unlock the virus (same definition of polite).
    If it's the DoD which gets hit, replace CIA with a Navy SEAL team.

    --
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    Laziness is the father.
    1. Re:Obvious problem by es330td · · Score: 1

      I've had the same thought but I've always assumed the aggrieved party would not be DoD or the CIA but some underworld group. Then one day it will be leaked into the computing underground that the butchering of an individual was the Russian Mafia's response to their getting hit by a virus. It may be some time before it happens, but one day a truly dangerous individual is going to be hurt by some virus writer and they are going to learn very quickly that worse things than death can happen to an individual.

    2. Re:Obvious problem by tddoog · · Score: 1

      Hopefully they don't keep their files in the My documents folders. Based on their security record, they might.

    3. Re:Obvious problem by Chitinid · · Score: 1

      Luckily, those capable of what you say are probably smart enough not to get infected in the first place. At least, I hope so. Most viruses these days seem to rely on the stupidity of the victim rather than any actual security vulnerability. Part of the problem is that users are forced into clicking confirmation dialogs for legitimate content, and do it without thinking.

    4. Re:Obvious problem by westyx · · Score: 1

      Yes, the same CIA that was caught by surprise by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall, can't find osama, and found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

    5. Re:Obvious problem by dodobh · · Score: 1

      Except that they pay for the account with a stolen credit card. All that it takes is one bit of carelessness. Miss that small 8 USD payment on your statement and you are screwed.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
  33. Our Documents by Skiron · · Score: 2

    I am pretty sure that 'mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw' is a registry key for 'My Documents'. It had to be encrypted for 2 reasons:

    1) Only you and MS can open 'My Documents'
    2) They haven't yet worked out how to really have spaces in file names lusers use. [cue: spinning hour glass]

  34. DAMMIT! I'm screwed! by martinultima · · Score: 4, Funny

    How'd that guy find out my root password!?

    --
    Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
  35. n00b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    b3 g1ad h3 wa$n'7 l33t 0r u'd b3 p0wn3d sux0r!

  36. Realtime Protection? by presentt · · Score: 1

    Could antivirus software's realtime protection work against this virus as well?

    It could stop activity such as batch file manipulations as they occur, and prompt the user whether or not (s)he wants the action to continue. It would be similar to the "Worm Activity" warning I get from McAfee when I send emails using a distrubution list with a large number of people on it--McAfee AV stops the mail from sending until I explicitly allow it. Thus, the AV protection for this extortion virus could stop mass file manipulations until explicit consent is given.

    --
    I decided to stop stealing cynical quotes to use as a signature line.
  37. It happens a lot by Chazmyrr · · Score: 1

    Using a string constant to hold an encryption key is pretty common among programmers new to encryption. It doesn't occur to them that someone is going to look at the string table and spot the key. A simple way to raise the bar is to construct the key on execution. The key can still be determined but it takes a lot more work.

    1. Re:It happens a lot by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Algoritmicaly constructing the key is also quite common around programmers that are new to crytography. The fact is that is as flawed as putting it as a constant, just need a bit more of time to decode. But it is much harder to implement, and may lead to bugs (that may compromise the program's security...).

      People who know what they are doing would use assymetrical criptography, or any other algorithm that is really more secure. Not security through obscurity.

    2. Re:It happens a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A simple way to raise the bar is to construct the key on execution. The key can still be determined but it takes a lot more work.

      Kind of but it really depends on who is looking. This weekend I saw how a friend of mine is dealing with this kind of problems. All he needs is a standard Windows debugger, 10 minutes and a beer. He does not need sources when he has assembly code compiled from C/C++.

    3. Re:It happens a lot by Chazmyrr · · Score: 1

      You assume that there won't be code to crash the debugger. That's becoming part of the standard virus toolkit.

  38. Just wondering... by rez_rat · · Score: 1

    This may be a little off-topic, but,...

    How many of you out there actually save your stuff in the "My Documents" folder?

    I throw all my stuff out to a network share.

    S-

    1. Re:Just wondering... by HitScan · · Score: 1

      In a good network setup, My Documents is a network share. That way all of your programs that default to saving in My Docs don't irritate you when they don't remember where you last saved.

      --
      HitScan
    2. Re:Just wondering... by duplicate-nickname · · Score: 1

      That's great and all, execept you have craptastic programs like VMWare which default to storing their multi-gigabtye files in the My Documents folder. Not to mention the handful of other programs which drop "working" files in the My Docs and moving them to a network share just slows them down.

      But otherwise yes, it is a good idea to move user's My Documents to a network share.

      --

      ÕÕ

    3. Re:Just wondering... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Laptop users and Microsoft Outlook users need to use some local directory for their material, and a lot of Windows software has the use of "My Documents" to store information hardcoded, and it's almost impossible to fix it in all the software that does it by default. If you set your profile to use the network share as your home directory, you'll just encrypt that.

    4. Re:Just wondering... by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      I do. I never saw a reason not to. And using a network share would be just silly on a laptop. And even for a desktop, what's wrong with it?

    5. Re:Just wondering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I store everything related to what it is. work hobbies, fun, games etc.

      I don't split stuff up into the format of the file (although I'm not sure what a 'document' is - word only?)

      it's crap because it doesn't help you track your work. I have mp3s and docs related to music.I store my compositions by date, not an mp3 in 'my music' and the score in 'my docs'. that would be stupid.

      I thought everbody organised their stuff this way and the default location going back to my whatever was just an irritation.

  39. Follow this money trail: by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Scammer hires people with the prospect of letting them have some of the money to transfer. Of course not under the premise that it's laundering. They'll claim that they're some international company and need a money representative in the country.

    Their "job" would be to have money transfered to their account and then send it via Western Union.

    Now follow it if you can. Yes, you'll get the guy who has been hired (or con'ed, your choice) to have his account used in the laundering. But you won't catch the actual person you want to get.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  40. Re:Obligatory Space Balls Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Did anyone ever tell you that a joke isn't funny when you're hearing it for the 800th time? Moron.

  41. Duh by PapaPatat · · Score: 1

    Anyone used google before? Results 1 - 10 of about 76 for mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw. (0.10 seconds) Word's been out forever

  42. Drats. Time to change passwd on the server farm! by rjamestaylor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
    Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
    mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw!
    Even though the sound of it Is something quite atrocious
    If you say it loud enough
    You'll always sound precocious
    mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw !
    Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
    Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
    Because I was afraid to speak
    When I was just a lad My father gave me nose a tweak And told me I was bad
    But then one day I learned a word That saved me aching nose
    The biggest word I ever heard And this is how it goes:
    Oh, mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw!
    Even though the sound of it
    Is something quite atrocious
    If you say it loud enough
    You'll always sound precocious
    mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw !

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  43. Base 13 Jokes by sconeu · · Score: 4, Funny

    Douglas Adams made one....

    "What do you get when you multiply six by nine?" "Forty-two".

    Work it out in base 13.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Base 13 Jokes by KlomDark · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow, I am REALLY slow on the draw. It's been near 25 years since I first read that and today is the first time I ever even 'did the math in my head' and realized that 6x9 != 42. (It's 54 for other slow thinkers... :) )

      More info:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_13

    2. Re:Base 13 Jokes by sconeu · · Score: 1

      My turn to slap forehead. I never read that wikipedia article until now, and I wasn't sure one way or the other if the math in base 13 was deliberate.

      Of course, Adams was just the sort to make a base-13 joke, and then claim it wasn't.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:Base 13 Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I noticed a long time ago that 6x9 does not equal 42, but I could never figure out what he meant by that. Base 13? OK, but I wish Mr Adams had left some references to 13 in his works so it would make sense.

    4. Re:Base 13 Jokes by ePhil_One · · Score: 1
      OK, but I wish Mr Adams had left some references to 13 in his works so it would make sense.

      By my understanding, Mr Adams had absolutely no idea 6*9=42 in base13 math, and had he realized it, would not have chosen 6*9 as the question to Life, the Universe, and Everything. Which makes it all the more likely its all a galactic joke by God for having successfully proven he does not exist.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    5. Re:Base 13 Jokes by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      These is a Slashdotter that posted once that he mentioned that it worked out in base-13 to Adams personlly and Adams supposedly stated that that was not his intention.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    6. Re:Base 13 Jokes by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      It's like the HAL -> IBM thing in Clarke and Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Both men have denied, over and over and over again, that HAL was any attempt to spoof IBM, and that the acronym stood for "Heuristic ALgorithmic" and the match up with IBM was nothing but coincidence.

      It doesn't stop morons from repeating the HAL -> IBM every goddamned time you read anything about the book/movie, though.

    7. Re:Base 13 Jokes by It'sYerMam · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The quote above, "no-one writes jokes in base 13" is a quote from DNA himself, upon hearing this theory about the question on a newsgroup, I believe.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    8. Re:Base 13 Jokes by 0racle · · Score: 2, Funny

      VMS

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    9. Re:Base 13 Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      > It doesn't stop morons from repeating the HAL -> IBM
      > every goddamned time you read anything about the book/movie, though.

      Erm, but you just...oh never mind :)

    10. Re:Base 13 Jokes by ePhil_One · · Score: 1
      Both men have denied, over and over and over again, that HAL was any attempt to spoof IBM

      Douglas Adams denied HAL is a spoof of IBM? He is funny

      Pendantic nitpicking aside, the key is Clarke faces a lawsuit from IBM for defamation if he admits it was his intention to write about an IBM computer that went nuts, killed astronauts, and potentially scuttled a billion dollar space mission. Remeber when it was written, computers were huge things only governments and big corporations had. While everyone is sure IBM won't sue if he admits it now, 40 yeasr later, he's been denying it so long its probably personal.

      Whereas the Society for the Empowerment of Prime Base Mathematics (SEPBM) isn't likely to sue Douglas.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    11. Re:Base 13 Jokes by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      My original post said "both Clarke and Kubrick" in the previous sentence, making it obvious what "both men" referred to.

      But the fact of the matter was that the name happened to be a coincidence. They happen, you know.

    12. Re:Base 13 Jokes by ePhil_One · · Score: 1
      I've gotten so used to "Kubrik's 2001: A Space Oddessy" that on first reading it didn't even register as a name. And since he's only the director, he didn't really have anything to do with the name aside from declining to chnage it in the movie. So I'm surprised he'd deny it. Given his anti-establishment bent, I'd figure he'd embrace it, actually.

      Anyway, apology is due, I misread. Sorry

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    13. Re:Base 13 Jokes by kimvette · · Score: 1
      Pendantic nitpicking aside, the key is Clarke faces a lawsuit from IBM for defamation if he admits it was his intention to write about an IBM computer that went nuts, killed astronauts, and potentially scuttled a billion dollar space mission.


      Pardon me, but how could a work which is obviously fiction possibly be construed as defamation, even if the monopolist of the time (IBM) were mentioned by name? It was set in the future, first of all, and had a machine which was self-aware - two obviously fictional subjects. Heck, if IBM were mentioned by name, it'd have been great PR for them to get product placement in their (their logo) like Ma Bell (I think it was AT&T logo, it's been a while since I've watched it) did.
      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  44. Big Bird chimes in by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Funny

    mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw
    It's the most remarkable word I've ever seen!
    mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw
    I wish I knew exactly what I mean!
    It starts out like an M word as anyone can see,
    But somewhere in the middle it gets awful 4J to me!
    mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw
    If I ever find out just what this word can mean,
    I'll be the smartest bird the world has ever seen!

  45. Re:DAMMIT! I'm screwed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely you know better than to have it so easily guessable?

  46. Closed Systems & Encryption? by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1

    You're wrong. You can cypher it with the public key and it can't be recovered without the private key, which is safe at his computer.

    The system you've described is not [internally] closed - it requires interaction with an external agent [which, in theory, at least, means that the FBI/NSA can track the transaction and find the bad guy].

    Ideally, though, you would want this sort of thing to be closed [with the encryption & decryption entirely internal to the system itself].

    Now I'm not an expert in encryption [really hardly even a novice], but it's always seemed to me that there must be some meta-theorem in encryption theory which states that this is impossible - that an encrypted system which is capable of de-encrypting itself is necessarily capable of being de-encrypted by a third party [with sufficient time and money on its hands].

    But is that true? Has such a meta-theorem been stated and proved?

    1. Re:Closed Systems & Encryption? by Kijori · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, that meta-theorem is kind of included in the idea that, with sufficient time and money, almost any cipher can be broken. And isn't the system necessarily open, since the extotionist must collect the money? This would, I suspect, me much easier to trace than the private key being delivered, which could just be a disc in an envelope sent via the postal service.

    2. Re:Closed Systems & Encryption? by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      Someone else has pointed out that (more or less?) anything can be broken with enough resources, so ignoring that point...

      What you're really talking about is, as well as hiding the key, using an obfuscated programming style in order to make sure that it's infeasible to analyse the code to find the key. I'm unaware of any research into making code that is actually secure in it's level of obfuscation - anyone want to tell me I'm wrong? I suspect that with enough time, it would be possible to make some fairly hard to analyse code, though.

      Non-deterministic behaviour, would be a good start. Throwing ideas out as I have them, imagine your code pulls half a dozen random numbers out of an algorithm, averages them, and uses the resulting number to determine what it does next. Say that number is, 90% of the time, the correct right step, and 10% of the time, it's not. A human running the program would probably simply go "Oh, my files haven't unencrypted, I'll try that again", but it would definitely make analysis harder.

    3. Re:Closed Systems & Encryption? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      I suspect that with enough time, it would be possible to make some fairly hard to analyse code, though.

      Maybe. Remember that there are always debuggers, though. Even if you don't have the debugging symbols or source code, even if it's confusing as hell, it's possible to analyze a running program. I would be curious to see what you can come up with, though -- I've always wondered if anything short of "Trusted Computing" can prevent piracy and cheating in online games.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    4. Re:Closed Systems & Encryption? by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      Had a bit of a thinkthrough with people, about this. Simplest way to make a program trickier to understand, is to make it larger. However, all ways I can think of doing this (generating values that aren't used, non-conditional jumps you don't need, etc.) can be pulled out automatically in O(n) time (where n is number of instructions in the code). Unless you're going to start shipping code on 100s of DVDs, you're unlikely to really make things hard this way.

      So the next step is to adapt the code to use non-deterministic execution, as I suggested in the previous post. Thing is, current processors are (meant to be? :)) purely deterministic; you can use a random number generator based on timestamps to emulate non-deterministic, but the user is still going to be able to change that time input, and therefore render your code determinstic. Still, I think you can get the time to analyse the code up to O(n^2)... at this point, it becomes annoyingly hard to decipher, but is certainly not what I'd call "unbreakable".

      If the code can depend on non-deterministic execution, the only way to analyse it pretty much comes down to repeatedly running it, and seeing what it tends to do. I'm not entirely sure what that does to the big-O, I just know it's going to be better than pseudo-non-deterministic.

      The last possibilty is self-modifying code, although that's merely changing the nature of the problem (it makes analysis code a nightmare to write, but I don't think it actually changes the big-O).

      Anyway, point is, nothing I can think of is going to withstand significant attack. Self modify non-determistic code would beat most people, though...

  47. one small error? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one small, critical error in coding ?

    That sounds like a monumental mistake, not a single small mistake, what are they on?

    1. Re:one small error? by fishbowl · · Score: 1



      >That sounds like a monumental mistake, not a single small mistake, what are they on?

      Exchanging the secret key is The Big Problem of cryptography.

      It's really hard to both give and retain the key. That's the fatal flaw in most DRM schemes.
      You want to massively distribute something and allow the client to have a hands-off installation
      process, but you also want exclusive control over that process.

      Didn't work for DVD-CSS. Doesn't work for Dongled software. Totally didn't work for this virus thingy.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  48. dumby head by zerosix · · Score: 1

    Obviously this guy is a noob. First of all, as was mentioned by others, why would he bother to decrypt thier files? I mean, it's like the, "you first, no you, no you" thing you did as kids. If I personally was going to do something illeagal like this, I would just delete the files then create a randomly filed file to pose as the data I encrypted. Secondly, if he was just trying to be a nice guy and really needed some money, then yeah he should have come up with a different scheme...I mean one persons pays up and posts the key on /. and everyone has the key. Wow, every time I read something like this I just want to smack someone... >:|

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. ~Albert Einstein
    1. Re:dumby head by Kijori · · Score: 1

      What's scary though isn't this particular virus, it's that the next one can build on the basic idea, but use public-key cryptography, multiple ciphers and a secure (i.e. untraceable) way to get the money without giving away your identity. Paypal to unnamed/stolen account and then transfer between multiple banks, perhaps. If they had a secure system from end-to-end, individuals, companies and indeed governments that were hit and had and urgent need of the data - perhaps going back to the backup 24 hours ago will cost more than the price for the key, perhaps there is not backup - will have no choice but to pay the price. And so will every person hit, unless they don't have anything necessary.

      It could have been terrible - we should be preparing for the inevitable improvement, not laughing at his mistakes, because he may have started a very destructive craze.

    2. Re:dumby head by dm0527 · · Score: 1

      Simply deleting the files means after the scheme is uncovered, anyone with a freeware undelete program can simply recover the files, delete the bogus "encrypted" file and move on.

      --
      - dm - The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
  49. DMCA? by willtsmith · · Score: 1

    Isn't Slashdot implicitly breaking the DMCA by posting this crack? That would be a real unintended consequence of the law if crooks could use it to protect their activities.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:DMCA? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Since the protection is not protecting the virus-writer's copyright-protected material (as the virus-writer doesn't own the user's documents), I don't think its a violation of the DMCA.

  50. Wait a second by SnickleFritz · · Score: 1

    That 30 digit code is the same as the version number of IE installed on my machine.

  51. All your documents are belong to us! by blueZ3 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Had to be said, karma be damned

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
  52. count again; it's 30 by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

    (for exceptionally high values of 30.)

    1. Re:count again; it's 30 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, it's just 30 in Base-1.2666666666, right?

  53. One could say... by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    The article had an air of truthiness about it...

  54. they were on the verge of arrest by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    But then this story on slashdot tipped the guy off so he didn't go collect his payment. Way to go, slashdot! This is almost as bad as the time the CIA had a mole really close to bin Laden until slashdot exposed him.

  55. How to pay the ransom? by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

    How can you, as a virus author, get paid without blowing your cover?

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  56. Major flaw by Vexorian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is a major flaw with the whole ransomware idea and it is that they are actually the most benign kind of virus. They just encrypt your files instead of deleting it? If someone's information is important enough to be worth paying for recovering it should already have a backup copy.

    Then the real problem problem for the hacker is getting the money without losing his secret identity

    --

    Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    1. Re:Major flaw by Dj-Zer0 · · Score: 1

      Thats what swiss accounts are for :-)

      --
      http://iesucks.org
  57. Re:Obligatory Space Balls Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone tell YOU that this joke never gets old? Dweeb.

  58. DeCSS by ashridah · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this similar to how DeCSS got started (the programmers making a mistake in the code, that is).

    I seem to recall it was reverse engineering Xing's dvd player libraries that resulted in the release of a DVD decryption key.

  59. tagging beta by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

    [+] mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw, haha, virus, pwned (tagging beta)

    Who tagged this article with the password? I find the thought of someone using the password in the tagging system to look for this and related articles to be absurdly hilarious.

  60. WTF by swanky · · Score: 1

    I paid for that same password! You can't just publish that since it is unfair to the rest of us who dutifuly did what we were told to do to get our data back :(

  61. Its not the kidnapping its the exchange by cfoushee · · Score: 1

    The real trick to any great ransom is not the actual kidnapping of the hostage its how to do the exchange without getting caught. Does anyone know what mechanism he planned to use in order to not get caught?
    I'll feel stupid if the answer has already added to the discussion but truthfully as I began reading most of the discussion was on the actual password.

  62. OMG! Is it a violation of DMCA? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Funny

    May be I am wrong, but I thought the Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibited breaking any encryption and made it a crime to "attempt to circumvent protection". The anti-virus people reverse engineered the virus code, decompiled it, probably ran it under SoftICE and published the password for the whole world to see. Can the author of the virus sue these anti-virus people under DMCA for causing "irreparable financial harm"? And hold slashdot as an accomplice for aiding and abetting the dissemination of the cracking key?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:OMG! Is it a violation of DMCA? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure illegal software is not covered.

    2. Re:OMG! Is it a violation of DMCA? by collinl · · Score: 1

      It'd be a brave coder to come forward and claim damages for copyright infringement in this case, imho.
      Of course, this may also require that a copyright licence accompanied the virus.

      Much spyware does have a copyright licence, so reverse engineering these can be a very different story.

      Lyal

  63. Re:screw in a light bulb by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    not if they were VERY small children.

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  64. Re:Rediculous Sig by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    Your .sig prompts the question: Wouldn't being Rediculous require the object to have been diculous 1st?

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  65. Man, I worked this out months ago... by clickety6 · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's just rot13 of "All your documents are belong to us..."

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  66. CIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The CIA won't have a problem taking down an online pharmacy or two, they really hate it when people interfere with their drug trade anyway.

  67. Bastards! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    That's my pin number! Excuse me while I change my luggage combination, too.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  68. No he didn't by juletre · · Score: 2, Informative

    When confronted with this at a press conference, mr Adams said "no one makes jokes in base 13". It is a coincidence.

    (or so i've heard)

    --
    "he, who has quotes in his signature, is a douche" - unknown.
  69. Couldn't this be figured out sooner? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

    Why does this need code analysis? All it takes is two user's who paid the ransom comparing notes to notice that everybody has the same password to unlock...

    1. Re:Couldn't this be figured out sooner? by qzulla · · Score: 1

      And of the millions of people on the net these people would know of each other how?

      Damn! I forgot the Kevin Bacon effect.

      Sorry.

      qz

  70. Re:How to pay the ransom? Here's how they do it. by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Simple. Transfer the money to the Bank/Account that's on your screen. Actually I don't think it's too hard for a russian to open an account for foreign currency at a Moscow bank using false id and I don't think other than the tax paramilitia they have in russia would really be interested in what they do with it (unless they're running short of Kulaks in the camps).

    In order to take care of this matter you would travel in person to Moscow. Since you haven't prepared for such a "mission" and are on your own you would first have to get an firearm or two. The best thing to do would be to run over over russian police officers with a stolen car in a rural setting. This is under the assumption that even when those two police men go missing it will be some time before they're found and before they start in on road blocks. I suppose this sounds hazardous as can be for a start but I don't think purchasing firearms as a foreigner from local crime you don't know is much safer than taking the police firearms. (If they catch you I don't know how many years of harsh labor camps you get for this before they execute you). Armed, you would then start accosting employees of the bank. If threats and intimidation don't give you the information then the next thing to do is to abduct the children of bank employees. Like they say in the songs, "The Russians love their children too" so that will most likely get you the information you need. Now you have the assumed name and a photocopy of the id they used to open the account and you've gotten a pretty unsharp surveillance video tape of the guy who opened the account. You travel to the russian backwater the cash withdrawals are made at. With luck they withdraw money regularily from a certain ATM at a certain time. You don't dare loiter near the ATM machines and hope that the same piece of shit comes by that opened the account because it just might be that the bank people you threatened and abducted the children from warned either them and/or told the russian police. Maybe you will hang on to a child hostage to make sure but that adds complications. If you strike it lucky then you have someone to throw into the back of the van you stole a day ago two hundred miles from X-Gorod and torture him with boiling hot water coming from a portable water boiler plugged into the dashboard. Let's say he breaks when you tell him the next portion of water goes into his eyes and you will blind him. He tells you about Dmitri, Petr, Pavel and Alex. You execute three people that night still not sure whether the guy you have tied up in the van was lying to you. Surely enough Alex's hardrive has an odd file on it under c:\rawodat\virus.asm. You peruse it while Alex is cowering in the corner with two broken thigh bones and one broken elbow parts of the bone have broken through the skin. You take a closer look at the source because Alex in this state is not going to get up and run and yes, this is exactly the piece of crap that encrypted my porn collection. You look at Alex and hear his exhausted faint mewls under the gag and his eyes begs you to let him live. You shoot him point blank into the face.

    Basically this is what you would have to go through as an American who doesn't know his way around in Russia to get the encryption key and get "justice served". They know that too which is they do it outright in the open.

  71. If you have the latest Pinnacle chip by FuzzyFox · · Score: 1

    If you enter the password and then press DELETE, you will get warped into the Internet and become a Freakzoid!!

    --
    splunge (n) -- A good idea.. but it could be lousy... and I'm not being indecisive!
  72. Files in My Documents by Sentri · · Score: 1

    Just a quick question to the slashdot readers.

    Who keeps a whole bunch of files in their my-documents folder anyway?

    --
    Can't we all just get along
    1. Re:Files in My Documents by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      Well, considering just about all Windoze apps point to My Documents by default when you choose "Save"... ;)

  73. Who said they're not using base 62 numbers? by Apache · · Score: 1

    If a password has 38 characters, it also has 30 characters. Duh.

    Also, this post has 5 words.

  74. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you trust the integrity of the files once you got them back? Kinda stupid to trust data that's been under the control of a malicious virus writer.

  75. Article is a little lacking... by thegrott · · Score: 1
    I wonder how many ppl actually got stung by this?
    "Archiveus was discovered on 6 May but it took the rest of the month for the first victim, Rochdale nurse Helen Barrow, to emerge."
    I take it this is the first person to report it, rather than the first person to actually be stung and pay up?

    Also no mention of the virus writer having his door kicked down yet? Yet this has been known about for one month now. Seems a little slow given they can trace where the money is going...
    --
    gone fishing...
  76. Re:How to pay the ransom? Here's how they do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow.....

    that's fucked up

  77. They don't get paid for it, that's how by Tipa · · Score: 1

    The virus author gets paid by the pharmacies to do a virus ad campaign. Victims pay money to the pharmacies. They tell the virus author someone has paid up, author releases the key to them.

    No money goes directly from victim to virus author.

  78. File Recovery Possible? by kiveol · · Score: 1

    AFAIK, the virus doesn't completely trash the actual files on the disk. If it doesn't, a file recovery program would be a simple way to get the files back.

  79. Actually, the author is even more stupid by TheSpoom · · Score: 2, Insightful
    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:Actually, the author is even more stupid by jandrese · · Score: 1
      Compiler: Visual Basic
      Man, it really is amature hour isn't it?
      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  80. Simple solution by qzulla · · Score: 1

    Keep your My Documents in The Other My Documents folder.

    qz

  81. Whoops! by 1053r · · Score: 1

    It looks like I just removed my account from XP and created it again, and got all my documents from the backup disk I create weekly (okay, monthly usually). That takes all the fun out of entering "mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw" into a little dialog box that promises to give me back my docs if I buy stuff from online pharmacies.

  82. Re:How to pay the ransom? Here's how they do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never mind, that's nothing. I have a diploma from the the School of the Americas.

  83. Re:DAMMIT! I'm screwed! by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1

    my suggestion would be attempting a joke that's not a variation of one told twice already.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  84. Funny base joke by totallygeek · · Score: 4, Funny

    You know why computer programmers get Thanksgiving and Christmas confused? Cuz OCT 31 == DEC 25.

    1. Re:Funny base joke by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thanksgiving is on the same day as Halloween?

      Now I understands what all the Americans are _really_ giving thanks for

      --
      Music is everybody's possession.
      It's only publishers who think that people own it.
      Fuck Beta
      ~John Lenno
  85. Virus Writer + AC Fail At DRM by patio11 · · Score: 1

    Only problem with that strategy is that after he gives out the private key to one person... well, it isn't so private anymore (and presumably "extorting one person" is not the entirety of the business model). You need to include a step where the virus phones home for a *unique* public key, then encrypt with that, and have it tied to a *unique* private key.

  86. Re:How to pay the ransom? Here's how they do it. by Cederic · · Score: 1


    You forgot the part where Alex's Chechen uncle goes all vendetta on you, your family and everybody you've emailed in the last 8 months.

  87. Digits? by kuzb · · Score: 0

    BTW, the 30-digit password locking the files is mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vmw

    mf2lro8sw03ufvnsq034jfowr18f3cszc20vm does not contain 30 digits. Characters perhaps, digits, no. It astounds me that such mistakes can actually make it on the front page of Slashdot.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re:Digits? by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      Depends on what base your math is in; a-z0-9 works great for base 36.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    2. Re:Digits? by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Except it's a string, not an integer or float. This much is made aparent by the article.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  88. From the fire, back into the frying pan. by m0thr4 · · Score: 1

    Yay... so now all the Windows users go back to being held to ransom by Norton, McAffee et al.

  89. My new internet store by nairobiny · · Score: 1

    1) Register a brand new internet store.
    2) ...
    3) Profit!

  90. "Stasi", not "Stazi" by Hakubi_Washu · · Score: 1

    I thought you might want to correct that Sig, it's "Stasi" (abr. "Staats-Sicherheit", roughly "State-Security") :-)

  91. MOD parent up by SloppyElvis · · Score: 1

    My faith in Slashdotters restored.

  92. Hmm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From lurhq:

    "Your computer caught our software while browsing illegal porn pages, all your documents, text files, databases in the folder My Documents was archived with long password."

    Does anyone else find this funny? =P

  93. Files Encrypted. by CffnDwllr · · Score: 1

    I always knew that there was a good reason that I never used ANY of the "My" folders.....

    --
    I'm waiting for WOOT to offer an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator. I need one.
  94. p.s. I do still want automatic versioning. by pentalive · · Score: 1

    I miss it from my VAX days.

  95. Argh! by totallygeek · · Score: 1

    s/Thanksgiving/Halloween/